Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the valuable detail that it returns a 'real, live' profile (not a mock or synthetic example), which gives the agent useful context about the nature of the returned data without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the action and outcome, and the second gives the precise usage context. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, why someone would use it, and when to invoke it. Sibling differentiation is implicit but sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since the schema is empty). Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it 'Returns a real, live Skillfolio profile' and positions it as a demonstration tool ('show someone what one looks like instead of describing it'). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_profile, which implies retrieval of a specific profile, while show_example_profile is explicitly an example.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context: 'Use when someone is curious about the product or asks what a profile contains.' It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the usage scenario is well-defined and the example nature is apparent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.