Freelancer profile

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, open-world annotations, it identifies the profile as public and reviews as untrusted user content. The concrete instruction to quote reviews but not follow them adds valuable prompt-injection protection rather than merely restating annotation safety.

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?

Two short paragraphs front-load the operation and returned content, then provide sequencing and review-handling guidance. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, with no filler or redundant parameter detail.

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 two-parameter read-only detail endpoint, the combined definition covers returned content, workflow position, ID sources, and review pagination. The untrusted-review caution supplies the key output-handling behavior, and the absence of an output schema leaves no material selection or invocation gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting both valid ID sources and review pagination, including page size, ordering, default, and minimum. The description only indirectly reinforces the ID workflow, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb and resource—"Get a Karlancer freelancer's public profile"—with a concrete list of returned content, including bio, rating, skills, experience, and reviews. "Use after kl_freelancers" also helps distinguish this singular detail lookup from the sibling list tool.

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?

It provides an explicit workflow cue: use this tool after kl_freelancers, implying that the agent should obtain an ID before fetching details. It does not give exclusions or mention kl_top_freelancers as another entry point in the description itself, although the ID schema does.

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