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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully signals that the response varies by detail_type, which is real behavioral information, but says nothing about payload differences, pagination, or that only history supports time filtering.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The only redundancy is that the enumerated detail types duplicate the schema's enum, which could have been spent on payload or usage detail instead.

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?

With no output schema and a tool that returns four materially different payload shapes, the description should explain what each detail type yields and what the history time filters do. Five parameters and three required fields are handled entirely by the schema, leaving the agent to guess the return structure.

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 80%, so the schema already documents profile_id, detail_type, and the history timestamps; the description merely restates the detail_type enum. It adds no meaning for workspace_id or an explanation of how started_after/started_before interact with the history detail type.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get profile details") and enumerates the four detail types the tool exposes, so an agent knows what it retrieves. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings such as get_profile_artifacts or list_profiles, so it is clear but not fully disambiguating.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to pick one detail_type over another, when to call this instead of get_profile_artifacts, or that profile_id must first come from list_profiles (that hint lives in the schema, not the description). The enum listing implies selectable modes but gives no selection criteria.

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