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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and mutability profile. The description adds that the profile is public and that public projects and shared assets are included, which is useful content-scope context, but it says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for missing slugs, or result size/pagination.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, lookup key, and included data with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 simple read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves gaps around usage relative to siblings, slug format expectations, and failure behavior, which an agent might need before invoking the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must carry the semantic burden. 'By slug' tells the agent the parameter is a slug-based lookup key, but adds no format, case-sensitivity, or example detail beyond what the bare schema type 'string' already implies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a public writer profile by slug') plus the scope of included data ('public projects and shared assets'). This is clear enough to distinguish from find_writers and list_writer_assets, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with a sibling tool.

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 phrase 'by slug' implies the tool is for lookup when the slug is already known, which is useful implied usage. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no indication of when to prefer find_writers or search over this tool.

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