freelance_get_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral context: 'READ_DIRECTORY' discloses the authorization requirement, and 'public projection' reveals that the response excludes private data (contrasting with get_my_profile). It would be stronger with error behavior for invalid ids, but provenance guidance mitigates the main failure case.

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 sentences with zero waste: the core action is front-loaded first, followed by the projection qualifier, permission requirement, and id provenance — each clause earns its place. The contrast framing for the name-vs-id warning is especially economical.

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 get-by-id tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (public projection), who may call it (READ_DIRECTORY), and how to obtain valid ids. Return-value details are only hinted at ('public projection'), but the self-evident nature of a profile retrieval makes this a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% (the schema already describes id as 'The freelance profile id'), so baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by specifying the valid id source ('Ids come from freelance_search_talent') and explicitly ruling out name lookups — this materially improves the agent's chance of supplying a valid parameter.

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 retrieval action ('One freelancer from the directory by id') with the resource clearly named. It differentiates from siblings: 'as the public projection shows them' distinguishes it from freelance_get_my_profile, and 'by id' separates it from freelance_search_talent. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit, actionable guidance: 'Ids come from freelance_search_talent' names the prerequisite sibling tool, 'Requires READ_DIRECTORY' states the permission gate, and 'a name is not an id, and there is no lookup by name' is an explicit when-not warning against the most likely misuse. This is exemplary routing and exclusion advice.

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