get_profile_views

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only mentions that the tool returns recent viewers but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, if results are limited by default, or what happens if there are no views. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose these important behaviors.

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 very concise, a single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. It earns points for brevity, but the lack of additional detail means it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Still, there is no wasted words, so it is appropriately sized for what it does.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide substantial context, but it does not. It fails to explain what data is returned (e.g., recruiters' names, companies, timestamps), how the limit parameter affects the output, or any prerequisites. The lack of output schema and annotations makes the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for explaining the 'limit' parameter. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer that 'limit' controls the number of results. This is a significant gap because the parameter's meaning is not self-evident from its name alone, and the description fails to explain it.

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 that the tool returns recruiters or companies that recently viewed your profile, which is a specific resource (profile views) and a clear intent. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_my_profile' or 'get_recommended_jobs', though the resource is distinct enough that an agent can infer the difference.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving profile visitor information, but does not mention when it should not be used or provide context such as 'use after login' or 'use to check who viewed your profile'. There is no comparison to sibling tools, so the usage context is only implied.

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