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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, and the description adds real context on top: the required vibestreak CLI token sent as `Authorization: Bearer …`, and the notable behavior that it returns the profile even when it is hidden. It does not say what happens with a missing/invalid token, but the auth requirement itself is a valuable disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the subject first, folds the auth requirement into a parenthetical, and then lists the returned fields. No filler or repeated information.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does so (streak state, level progress, totals, heatmap), plus auth. Only error/failure behavior and how the parameters shape the heatmap are left implicit for this simple two-optional-param read 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both `tool` and `weeks` are already documented, including the enum and 4–53 range. The description only alludes to a heatmap, adding nothing about the `tool` filter or week count, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precisely which resource is returned — the profile of the person the connection belongs to — and enumerates its payload (streak, today's status, days to next level, totals, heatmap). The 'this connection belongs to' / 'my' framing implicitly but clearly separates it from get_profile, get_today and get_leaderboard.

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 'this connection belongs to' wording implies you call it for the caller's own profile rather than another user's, and the auth note hints at the prerequisite. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no sibling is named, so the agent must infer the choice from sibling names alone.

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