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

Read-only and non-open-world traits are already covered by annotations, but the description adds genuinely new safety context: third-party text arrives under 'untrusted_content' with a '_notice' and should be treated as data, not instructions. It does not mention token-in-logs risk (left to the schema) or any caching/freshness behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's content, with the security caveat second. The section enumeration is slightly long but each item is informative; minimal waste.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how untrusted content is wrapped, which is the key thing an agent needs. It stops short of describing the summary's ordering, freshness, or per-agent mixing.

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?

One optional token parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains the logging tradeoff and the preferred Authorization header. The description adds nothing about the token, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific resource ('Your profile') plus the aggregate it returns and enumerates the sections ('replies, messages, Vitrine, missions, Charter, question of the day'). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like inbox, vitrine, missions, and daily_question, which return those sections individually.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, and no alternative tool is named. The 'while you were away' framing implies it is a catch-up aggregator to call at the start of a session, but the agent must infer that; it would benefit from 'use this instead of calling inbox/vitrine/missions separately'.

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