profile

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses a key limitation ('no raw email is published') and implies a contact boundary, but it does not describe the return format or any other behavioral traits such as data freshness or access restrictions.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core content ('Current availability'). While it is a fragment rather than a full sentence, it avoids unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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?

This is a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain the return value. It lists the information provided (availability, work scope, contact boundary) and one limitation, but it does not specify the structure or format of the returned data, leaving some ambiguity.

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, and the input schema is an empty object. Since parameter semantics are not applicable, the baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 identifies the resource ('current availability, work scope, and the contact boundary') and the tool name 'get_availability' implies a retrieval operation. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_profile_summary.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_profile_summary or search_faq, nor does it specify any context or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the output contents (entity, availability, pointers), which conveys a read-only behavior. However, it does not describe return format, error behavior, authentication requirements, or any limitations, leaving some gaps for a no-annotation scenario.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Profile summary') and immediately enumerates the key components. Every word adds value; no fluff or redundancy exists.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description provides a reasonable list of what the summary includes. For a tool with no parameters, this is largely sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's basic purpose and invocation. Missing details such as exact JSON structure or fallback behavior are not critical for a summary tool.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none; it instead focuses on the output structure, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 indicates a profile summary tool and lists its contents (entity name, canonical @id, sameAs, availability, machine-readable pointers). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_availability or get_project by focusing on a summary of multiple data aspects. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns', relying on the tool name to convey the action.

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. It does not mention sibling tools, use cases, or exclusions. In the absence of any context, the agent has no information about selection criteria beyond the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup by saying 'full indexed detail,' but it does not explicitly state that it is safe/non-destructive, nor does it mention error handling, authentication, or rate limits. It provides basic context about output content but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It includes specific output details without unnecessary fluff, earning a perfect score.

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 no annotations, the description should provide a clear picture of what to expect. It lists some return values (canonical URL, links, proof count) but does not cover pagination, error behavior, or other potential fields. For a simple lookup tool, it is minimally complete but leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'slug' refers to the project's slug, which is helpful, but it does not explain slug format, uniqueness, or how to obtain it. For a single parameter, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 the tool's function: retrieving full indexed detail for one project by slug. It specifies the resource (project), the method (by slug), and the content (canonical URL, links, proof count), distinguishing it from siblings like list_projects or get_proof.

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 when to use this tool: when you need detailed information for a single project identified by slug. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know to use this for single-project lookup rather than listing or other specific queries.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that unknown slugs return an error and indicates two modes (default and slug-scoped). This is useful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover return format or side effects (if any).

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a short error-handling note. No wasted words.

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 simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the purpose, parameter behavior, and error case. The term 'claim gates' might be unclear to unfamiliar agents, but within the sibling context it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'slug' specifies a per-project proof link and that unknown slugs cause an error. This clarifies the optional parameter well beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool's function: retrieving verification proof for claim gates, or per-project proof links when a slug is given. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project and get_profile_summary.

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?

Usage is implied: use for proof retrieval, optionally scoped by slug. However, no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided, and there is no mention of when choose this over other getter tools.

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

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 important behaviors: filters combine with AND, are case-insensitive, and unknown values yield an empty list. It also clarifies tag format and matching. This is strong transparency for a read-only list operation, though it does not mention pagination or sort order.

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 concise, with two sentences that first state the core purpose and filter behavior, then provide tag-specific details. Every sentence adds value, and it is well-structured for quick reading.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: scope ('portfolio projects'), filter semantics, edge case behavior, and tag format. It is complete enough for agents to use effectively, though it omits details about the returned fields or pagination, which are not critical.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning for filters overall and specifically elaborates on the 'tag' parameter with format examples and case-insensitivity. However, the 'lens' parameter is not explained beyond its enum values, leaving a partial compensation. The filter behavior applies to both parameters, giving some semantics.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb+resource: 'List portfolio projects.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_availability and get_project, which imply different operations (e.g., fetching a single project or checking availability).

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 when to use the tool (to list portfolio projects) and describes optional filters and their behavior, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it does not say 'use get_project for a single project,' so guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: case-insensitive substring matching and that it searches both questions and answers. However, it does not clarify return format, pagination, or whether it is read-only, though 'search' implies non-destructive.

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 one short sentence that directly conveys the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 (2 params, no output schema), but the description omits explanation of the 'limit' parameter and does not mention what the search results look like. While the purpose is clear, the lack of parameter context and return value details leaves some gaps for a new agent.

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 implicitly covers 'query' as the substring to search for, but it does not explain 'limit' at all, such as its purpose or max value. With no parameter details in the schema, this is a notable gap.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('consolidated FAQ'), and specifies the scope ('question + answer'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_project or list_projects, which focus on other resources.

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 the tool is for searching FAQ content but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no comparison with sibling tools, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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