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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by noting the operation targets the authenticated user and returns the same data shape as get_profile, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as authentication requirements or response specifics beyond what annotations imply.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, then adds the distinguishing comparison to get_profile. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 parameterless, read-only tool, the description is mostly complete: it states what the tool returns and how to distinguish it from get_profile. However, return details are delegated to get_profile rather than enumerated, and there is no output schema, so the description relies on the agent having or finding get_profile's definition for full context.

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, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the input schema. Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4; the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('the authenticated user's own Orbit profile') and explicitly distinguishes it from get_profile by scoping to the current user. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from its most similar sibling.

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 clearly positions this tool against get_profile ('same detailed profile data... but for the current user'), which tells the agent when to choose this instead of get_profile. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or other alternatives like whoami or auth_status, but the core usage context is clear.

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