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

Annotations already signal readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond this by enumerating the profile contents returned (name, description, keywords, whether the user wants to be contacted) and by explaining the public/private distinction between own and others' profiles.

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 two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence carries useful information: what the tool does, what the two modes return, and when one mode is relevant.

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 only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the returned fields for the own profile and distinguishes the public profile case. It could be slightly more explicit about exactly which fields appear when reading another user's public profile, but the main usage scenarios are covered.

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 schema covers the parameter with 'Wessen Profil. Weglassen fuer das eigene', and the description reinforces and extends this by explaining that providing nutzer_id returns the public profile and is useful before messaging someone. This adds semantic context beyond the schema alone.

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 states the specific verb 'Liest' with the resource 'Profil', and clearly distinguishes two modes: reading your own profile without an argument and reading another person's public profile with nutzer_id. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous and separates it from siblings like profil_aendern.

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 gives clear context for both invocation modes: use no argument for your own profile, use nutzer_id for another person's public profile, e.g., before writing to them. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the 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.