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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context about the specific data returned (subscription tier, token balance, CV credits), and implies the need for an authenticated session. It does not mention potential errors or side effects, but the read-only nature is well-covered.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states what the tool does and what it returns. No filler or redundant phrasing; every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, an output schema is present, and the description lists the key returned data. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the call's purpose and expected output, though it doesn't explicitly mention authentication prerequisites or error handling, which are minor given the output schema and read-only nature.

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 100%, with the single optional api_key parameter fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so it meets the baseline of 3 without further contribution.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and the resource ('current authenticated user account profile') plus the exact data returned (subscription tier, token balance, CV credits). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like civify_check_cv_entitlement and civify_get_pay_per_cv_pricing, which target different concerns.

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 does not provide any when-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools. While the purpose is clear, there is no explicit instruction on when to choose this tool over siblings like civify_check_cv_entitlement or civify_set_api_key, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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