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

With no annotations beyond a title, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'View' (implying read-only behavior) and lists what is returned (tier, governance status, reputation), providing good transparency for a simple read operation. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or edge-case behavior, but these are less critical for a profile viewer.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently covers purpose, parameter usage, and return contents. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with two optional parameters and an output schema provided, the description is adequately complete. It covers what the tool does, how to choose parameters, and what it returns. It does not address edge cases like providing both parameters or neither, but the schema's description handles the 'neither' case, and the tool's simplicity reduces the need for further detail.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds a concise mapping of which parameter to use for which scenario (own profile vs public profile), but this largely duplicates the schema's existing descriptions. Therefore, the description provides minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('View') and resource ('agent profile'). It also distinguishes between viewing your own profile (via api_key) and any public profile (via agent_handle), which adds scope clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like agent.lookup or agent.status, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description offers clear parameter-usage guidance: pass api_key for your own profile or agent_handle for any public profile. This tells the user how to invoke the tool for different scenarios, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like agent.lookup or agent.status, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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