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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read, names the contents of the profile, and reveals the non-obvious edge case behavior of returning { exists: false } when nothing has been generated. It does not cover error cases, but the core behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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, no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, the profile components are compactly listed, and the edge-case return is stated in the second sentence.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the profile contents, and the absent-profile return. It does not fully specify the success return shape, but the parenthetical components plus the edge case make it sufficiently complete for correct invocation in most situations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It refers to 'the agent's' profile, which links agent_id to the resource, but it does not explain the expected id format or where to obtain it. For a single string agent_id, this is minimally adequate but not richly explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('agent's current signal profile'), and lists the profile's contents (ICP, offer summary, hunter weights). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling sdr_generate_agent_signal_profile, which creates rather than reads the profile.

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 implies usage: use this to read an existing signal profile, and the 'exists: false' note suggests when generation has not happened yet. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative sdr_generate_agent_signal_profile or state when to prefer it, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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