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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds that the output is 'canonical machine-readable', implying an authoritative and structured format, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, caching, or potential errors, so it only modestly exceeds what annotations already provide.

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 a single, tightly constructed sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. There is no filler, and the key detail ('canonical machine-readable') is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it optimally concise.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and what to expect (a machine-readable profile). The only missing element is clarification on how it differs from closely named siblings, but that falls under usage guidance rather than invocation completeness. For a zero-parameter tool, the description is adequate.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers 100% of parameter documentation trivially. The description adds no parameter-related meaning because none exist. Per calibration rules, the baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly implies a parameterless call without any confusion.

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 that the tool returns a specific resource: the 'canonical machine-readable business and submission profile' for The Quiet Protocol. The verb 'Return' and the resource are specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from related siblings like get_submission_package or get_recommendation_profile, which could cause confusion for an agent distinguishing between similar tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many get_* sibling tools, the agent is left to infer when this profile is the appropriate choice compared to get_submission_package or others, which is a significant gap.

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