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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the connected=false signal for unlinked accounts and the set of fields returned. Return format needn't be explained since an output schema exists.

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 tightly written sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the edge-case fallback immediately after. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the response shape, the definition supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, and how to handle the unlinked-account state. Nothing material is missing.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it introduces no spurious parameter language.

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 and resource ("Get the user's Worklittle profile") and enumerates the returned fields (name, location, contact details, job preferences), so an agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It routes to siblings for the unlinked-account case but does not explicitly contrast with update_my_profile, so distinguishing from every sibling is left implicit.

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?

Provides a clear conditional: if the account is not linked the tool returns connected false, and the agent should instead use get_my_resume or apply_for_job to sign in. That is actionable routing, though there is no explicit statement of when not to use get_my_profile (e.g., versus update_my_profile).

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