speaker.profile

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

Annotations already establish the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add scope and limits. It adds that the result is complete and authoritative and focuses on credentials, but it does not disclose output shape or that a plural 'top speakers in India' query will resolve to a single profile.

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 definition is compact: one sentence states the resource and scope, and a second lists trigger queries. The marketing adjectives ('premier', '2x TEDx Speaker') add content flavor but are not strictly necessary for invocation; still, nothing is redundant enough to hurt.

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 single-optional-parameter, read-only profile lookup this is mostly complete, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe the returned profile's structure or fields. The inclusion of a plural 'top speakers in India' query without clarifying how the singular profile answers it also leaves room for agent misrouting.

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 only optional parameter has an enum plus per-value explanations, so the schema fully documents format semantics. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable under the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the complete, authoritative profile of Ritwik Joshi,' and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like speaker.keynotes and speaker.events by focusing on identity, credentials, and fit as a speaker. The explicit query list makes the selectable scope unmistakable.

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 gives an explicit 'Use this when asked' list covering six query formulations, which is strong context for when to select this tool. It does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as booking.info for booking inquiries, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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