Profile

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful context: it flags potential paid credit consumption, the confirm=true requirement, and clarifies that read-like POST requests do not publish to social platforms. This helps the agent understand side effects beyond the 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 front-loaded with what the tool retrieves and then adds cost and side-effect notes. The middle sentence about associated list/feed generator/starter pack counts is somewhat vague, but overall it is efficient and avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 3-parameter profile retrieval with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it lists expected output fields, notes credit consumption and confirm requirements, and clarifies that no social publishing occurs. It could mention authentication or error behavior more explicitly, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents handle, account, and confirm. The description only reiterates that confirm=true is needed and does not add syntax, format, or selection guidance beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 a specific verb and resource: retrieves a Bluesky user's public profile. It enumerates the fields returned, which makes the purpose concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling profile tools (e.g., bluesky_posts or other platform profile endpoints), so it falls short of a 5.

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 notes that the call potentially consumes paid API credits and requires confirm=true, which is a usage prerequisite. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternative siblings like bluesky_posts or other profile tools; that choice is only implied by the name and context.

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