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

With no annotations, the description carries more burden, but it does disclose meaningful traits: the profile is public, free, and excludes the trust score. It does not state whether the lookup is read-only, whether authentication is required, or what the response contains.

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 three short, front-loaded fragments with no wasted language. It delivers the key scope and exclusion information immediately.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description gives useful scope and pricing context but does not describe what fields a 'public agent profile' returns. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response shape.

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%, and the single parameter agent_id is already documented in the schema as a stable av: id or did:key. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as a public agent profile and distinguishes it from trust-related lookups by stating it does not include the trust score. It is clear enough for an agent to know this is a profile lookup, though it does not begin with an explicit verb such as 'Retrieve'.

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 note that it does not include the trust score implies that trust_check should be used for trust assessment, and 'Free' may differentiate it from pricing-related tools. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use guidance is provided.

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