get_mapping_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the conditional defaults (other_version falls back to the active version; search is the proposal ID and omitting it lists open proposals), which is genuinely useful, but it never states explicitly that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor anything about auth or pagination, and 'JSON for the requested view' is a vague return statement.

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?

Well front-loaded: the purpose sentence precedes the Args/Returns blocks, and each arg line is a single tight clause. The only marginal line is the Returns summary, which is minimal and justified by disambiguating the multi-view output.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description covers every parameter and view mode. It is close to complete for a read tool; the missing piece is an explicit read-only/no-side-effect statement, which matters more here given the absence of annotations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It documents all five parameters, supplies the five enum values for 'view' that the schema lacks, and clarifies the conditional meaning of 'version', 'other_version', 'entity', and 'search' per view.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Read the tenant mapping profile') and enumerates the four things it can return (profile, history, diff, proposal). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts itself with the obvious sibling manage_mapping_profile or the proposal siblings, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 Args block does real work here: it tells the agent which view to pick and what each view requires, which substitutes for intra-tool usage guidance. However, there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus manage_mapping_profile, propose_mapping_changes, or commit_mapping_changes, so cross-tool routing is only implied by the name.

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