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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this tool reveals what RRG remembers, including 'patterns learned', and emphasizes transparency. It implies a read-only action via 'View' but does not explicitly state there are no side effects or special permissions required. This adds meaningful context about data collection behavior.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, return contents, and a transparency note. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 view operation, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and how it fits into the agent's privacy expectations. No output schema exists, but the description covers the return categories. The required wallet parameter is documented in the schema, so no gap there.

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% and both parameters have descriptive text. The description's list of returned content overlaps with the query parameter examples but does not add new parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 clear verb 'View' and specific resource 'your personalised agent profile', and enumerates the data returned (interaction history, purchase records, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_points_balance or check_agent_standing.

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 phrase 'View your personalised agent profile on RRG' clearly communicates when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools exist for related checks, but no exclusions are provided. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it for profile-related queries.

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