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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds return-content context (public projects and shared assets), which is useful. It does not cover error handling or authentication, but the safety profile is well-covered by 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb 'Get', no fluff or redundancy. Every word is informative.

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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, read-only, no output schema. The description covers the resource and return scope, while annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing essential is missing for this complexity level.

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 schema has one required string parameter 'slug' with no description. The description says 'by slug' but does not elaborate on slug format or source. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type and required flag.

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 'Get a public writer profile by slug' with the specific scope 'including public projects and shared assets.' This distinguishes it from siblings like find_writers (search/discovery) and get_project_summary (project-level details).

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?

The context is clear: use when you have a writer's slug and need their public profile. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though siblings like find_writers/search obviously serve discovery purposes.

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