x_profile

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: 'visible' limits scope and 'Counts are returned as displayed' warns that follower/following numbers may not be exact. This is valuable beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the primary action and key fields are front-loaded, and the display-count caveat is a standalone second sentence that earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description covers the returned content and the important display caveat. It does omit edge cases (private/nonexistent profiles) and the meaning of 'visible', but the tool is otherwise adequately specified.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain the 'handle' parameter, but it never mentions it. The property name and tool name make 'handle' partially inferable, but the description provides no format, identity, or usage nuance.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Read') and a bounded resource ('profile header, biography, location, website, displayed follower/following counts'), which clearly separates it from siblings like x_user_posts or x_timeline. The scope is unambiguous and actionable.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites stated. The only context is implied by the description's name and wording, so an agent must infer when profile-read is appropriate.

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