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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the returned fields depend on what the token may see and can include compensation and other sensitive HR data, which is an important disclosure for an agent handling the output.

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?

One dense but front-loaded sentence covering purpose and scope, followed by a short endpoint reference. No filler, and the sensitivity caveat sits in the same sentence rather than buried later.

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 describing the return value, and it does so by enumerating the field families returned, including the token-dependent custom fields. The only gap is error behavior for an invalid or inaccessible id, which is a minor omission for a one-parameter 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that the id is a Namely profile id from namely_list_profiles. The description only restates "by id" and adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 one employee's full profile by id") and enumerates the payload scope: personal/job data, manager, groups, teams, custom fields. That makes it clearly distinguishable from namely_list_profiles (many) and namely_get_group/namely_get_team (other resources).

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 "by id" plus the schema note that the id comes from namely_list_profiles implies the list-then-fetch pattern, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over namely_list_profiles or namely_get_me for the caller's own profile. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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