get_profile_newsletter_interests

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only notes a pagination limit but omits whether the tool requires authentication, is read-only (likely), or has rate limits. No side effects or authorization requirements are mentioned, leaving significant gaps.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and a key constraint. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and a pagination detail. However, it fails to specify which profile (e.g., the authenticated user's) or any return format. While adequate for a simple tool, it leaves the agent guessing about scope and usage context.

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 input schema has no parameters and is fully covered (100%), so the description adds no parameter-specific information. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema itself is sufficient. The mention of 'up to 50 per page' is a behavioral note, not parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('profile's newsletter interests'), clearly indicating what the tool retrieves. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_profile_group_interests or get_profile_school_interests by focusing on newsletter interests. The mention of pagination (up to 50 per page) adds precision.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to other interest tools. The agent receives no context about which profile is queried or when this tool is appropriate.

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