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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the authentication requirement and the shape of the returned data. It does not say how a missing profile is handled (empty result vs. error), which is the one behavioral gap.

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 short sentences: the auth prerequisite is front-loaded and the field enumeration earns its place by previewing the return payload. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned profile fields and names the consuming tool. The only missing piece an agent might need is behavior when the user has no saved profile yet.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The parenthetical field list describes output content, not inputs, but does no harm.

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 verb ("Hämtar") plus the exact resource ("användarens sparade profil") and enumerates the profile fields it returns. It also ties itself to the sibling my_monthly_cost, so an agent can distinguish it from save_profile and list_campaigns without opening a schema.

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 a clear precondition ("Kräver inloggning") and states the downstream purpose (the profile is used in my_monthly_cost), which tells the agent when to fetch it. It does not explicitly route the agent to save_profile for the write counterpart or say what to do when no profile exists.

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