render

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool does NOT fetch the SVG, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, which would be needed for full transparency. The explicit negation of SVG fetching earns a high score, but some gaps remain.

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 two sentences long, highly concise, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and moderate complexity (nested params), the description adequately explains the tool's output (URL and snippets) and workflow (call list_cards first). It could mention the output format in more detail, but the context signals (no output schema) mean the description carries this burden well.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it explains that values are stringified and URL-encoded, and suggests using list_cards output for common params. This adds some value but not enough to raise the score above baseline.

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 builds a ProfileKit card URL and markdown/HTML snippets, specifying the verb 'Build' and the resource 'ProfileKit card URL plus snippets'. It distinguishes from 'list_cards' by noting it does NOT fetch the SVG, which helps clarify the tool's scope.

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 explicitly advises to call 'list_cards' first if unsure about the card type or parameters, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It also mentions that the URL is for embedding, not fetching SVG, setting correct expectations.

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