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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully lists the returned data categories, but it does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, auth requirements, or rate limiting. The schema covers the api_key auth parameter, which partially compensates.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core resource and enumerates the useful returned fields. No filler or 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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the main return categories: profile, stats, quota limits, webhook URL, and webhook health. It is sufficient to call correctly, though it could briefly clarify the read-only nature and authentication expectation.

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?

There is one optional parameter, api_key, and schema description coverage is 100%. The schema fully documents its purpose and security constraint, while the tool description adds nothing about the parameter. Baseline 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 clearly identifies this as a self-profile tool that returns the caller's agent profile, stats, quota limits, and webhook details. The word 'Your' distinguishes it from get_agent, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should call this to inspect its own quota, webhook health, or profile. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as get_agent or update_agent.

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