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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the auth requirement, the need to re-call after authentication, and the start_login caveat, and it describes the returned data. It doesn't mention error conditions or explicit read-only guarantees, but 'Get' and the return statement make the behavior clear for a zero-parameter tool.

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 purpose and return payload are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the ACCESS note is compact and specific. No sentence is wasted; the auth flow and start_login exclusion both earn their 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?

For a simple zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, that authentication is required, and how it relates to the start_login flow. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 covers 100% of the parameter surface, so there is no additional parameter meaning for the description to add. This matches the 0-parameter baseline for the dimension.

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 operation ('Get'), a precise resource ('current user's primary profile'), and the return payload (profile details, theme, custom links, public proof display settings). The phrase 'current user's primary' separates it from siblings such as get_current_user, get_profile, and list_profiles.

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?

Gives clear context: this tool requires a Proof account and an already-authenticated client, and it explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool. It doesn't enumerate alternatives, but 'current user's primary profile' plus the auth caveat is enough to route an agent to the correct call.

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