departi_get_profile

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies OAuth authentication is required, confirms it is read-only and takes no parameters, and lists exactly what data is returned (including compliance snapshot details). This is more informative than annotations alone, which only provide hints. No contradictions with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by use-case guidance. Every sentence adds value: first sentence enumerates return fields, second sentence provides usage context and emphasizes no parameters and auth. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has no input parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main output fields and authentication requirements. While it could elaborate on the 'live compliance snapshot' structure, the description is already quite complete for a profile retrieval tool. The usage guidance ties well into sibling tool context.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description confirms 'takes no parameters', which matches the empty input schema. The description adds no further syntax or format details, but baseline is 4 for 0-param tools.

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 returns the authenticated user's Departi profile with specific fields (nationalities, tax residence, subscription tier, travel-history, compliance snapshot). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like departi_check_visa or departi_search_accommodation, which handle specific checks or searches.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use to personalise the other tools' answers, or to answer "where do I stand right now".' This helps the agent know when to invoke it (before other tools for context). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it's not a full 5.

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