Accounts you feature on your own profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the resource's meaning, such as pagination behavior or auth requirements, but nothing it states conflicts with annotations.

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, efficient noun phrase with no filler words. However, it duplicates the title exactly, so it earns no extra credit for providing unique information and lacks a front-loaded action verb.

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 list with documented parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. It does not describe the output shape or item fields, and with no output schema an agent would have to infer the return format from the name and title.

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 limit, max_id, and account are fully explained in the schema, including defaults, constraints, and continuation semantics. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score 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 names the exact resource ('accounts you feature on your own profile') and the tool name 'get_endorsements' maps directly to it. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like get_followers or get_following, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' and repeats the title verbatim.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool rather than the many sibling get_* tools, no stated exclusions, and no mention of common use cases such as retrieving the profile's featured endorsements. An agent must infer the context entirely from the name and title.

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