Get a profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Returns' makes the read-only nature clear and the field list gives some expectation about the response, but it does not disclose authentication needs, visibility restrictions, or behavior when the identifier does not match a profile.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, and every phrase contributes useful information.

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?

The tool is simple, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry more context. It lists the main fields but omits error behavior, identifier format, and any access constraints, leaving partial ambiguity for an agent.

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%, and the description only restates the parameter name as 'identifier' without defining what form it takes (e.g., numeric ID, URL slug, public username). This does not meaningfully add beyond the input schema.

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 ('Returns'), a clear resource ('member profile'), and the lookup key ('by identifier'), and it lists the returned fields. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_me by the identifier-based lookup.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_me, get_connections_summary, or get_posts. The phrase 'by identifier' weakly implies a use case, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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