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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full behavioral burden. It discloses the auth requirement, directs the agent to re-call after authentication, and notes that start_login does not open the tool. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' and the return-details wording, and no contradictions exist.

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 two short, focused paragraphs: the first front-loads purpose and return details, the second delivers a necessary auth note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 getter with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, highlights return contents, and explains the critical authentication flow. It does not explain how to obtain a profile_id or behavior on invalid IDs, but these are minor gaps for such a simple 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with 'profile_id' described as 'Profile ID'. The description restates that the tool gets a profile by ID but adds no extra formatting, source, or validation details, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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'), a clear resource ('profile'), and the key discriminator ('by ID'). It also lists what is returned (theme, custom links, verification display settings), making it immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_profiles and get_my_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 gives clear context by specifying the access prerequisite (Proof account, authenticated client) and instructs the agent to authenticate before retrying. It also warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, which is a useful exclusion. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over get_my_profile or list_profiles.

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