get_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: the NOT_AUTHENTICATED recovery sequence and the credential-resolution order (env vars then user prompt). It doesn't cover pagination or error shapes, but the auth-recovery chain is the critical operational detail and it is fully disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its fields, then the recovery procedure. Every sentence carries operational weight. It is dense but not redundant; the auth instructions are necessarily multi-step and cannot be shortened without losing the retry chain.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's field enumeration stands in for it and does so adequately. The auth prerequisite and recovery path are spelled out. Complete enough to call correctly; the only omission is the shape of the profile object beyond field names, which is minor for a simple profile fetch.

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 takes no parameters, so the schema has nothing to say; baseline is 4. The description correctly signals that no arguments are needed and instead spends its budget on the auth flow, which is the only variable that affects invocation.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (student profile), then enumerates exactly what fields are returned. Distinguishable from the sibling get_student_profile by name and scope, and the field list makes the return contract concrete.

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?

Explicitly says 'Requires login' and gives a full conditional playbook: on NOT_AUTHENTICATED, call get_captcha then login then retry. It even specifies the fallback when env credentials are missing (ask the user). This is a rare, complete when/when-not/alternative prescription.

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