rover_sitter_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Public data sourced from Rover's own server-rendered profile pages', indicating no authentication is needed and it's a read operation. It also mentions the output is 'normalized', which is a behavioral detail. It does not disclose potential errors or rate limits, but for a simple get operation, this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences. The first sentence is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then lists the returned fields. The second sentence adds provenance. It is relatively concise, though the list of fields is lengthy. It could be structured as bullet points for readability, but it's not overly verbose.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It enumerates the returned data fields, so an agent knows what to expect. It lacks explicit handling of error cases or edge conditions, but given the simplicity, it's adequate. Sibling tools like rover_sitter_search provide context for how to obtain the slug.

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 covers the single parameter 'slug' with a description: 'Rover sitter profile slug, the trailing path segment of a search result's profile_url field'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about this parameter; it only repeats the context. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and no extra value is added.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Rover sitter profile' and enumerates the specific fields returned (name, photo, bio, star rating, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rover_sitter_search (which finds profiles) and rover_trainer_profile (which handles trainers) by focusing on a single sitter's profile.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need a specific sitter's profile, given a slug. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of having a slug from a search result (as mentioned in the schema) makes usage clear. A more explicit mention of rover_sitter_search for finding profiles would improve it.

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