product_get_profile

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes further by enumerating the server's exact limitations: it cannot post, comment, vote, edit, delete, follow, or message, and no such code exists. It also discloses the unusual gated behavior where the tool intentionally returns no product data, adding important context beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and gating behavior, then adds read-only and participation-policy context. The extra guidance is relevant but goes beyond tool mechanics, making the description slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description fully explains the unusual gated behavior, the correct alternative, the read-only nature, and applicable policy constraints. Nothing essential for an agent to call or route around this tool 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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 clearly identifies the resource as the user's product details and uses retrieval language ('returns') around the gated behavior. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling tool by directing to product_get_expertise when promotion mode is 'never', satisfying sibling differentiation.

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?

It explicitly explains when this tool returns no product information (promotion mode 'never'), states that this is correct rather than an error, and names the alternative tool to use instead. This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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