departi_get_profile

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that authentication is required, which is a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but the added auth context is useful.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a list of returned fields. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes only essential information. Every part serves a clear purpose.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description clearly enumerates the return categories (preferences, travel history, subscription tier, compliance summary). For a simple read tool with good annotations, this sufficiently informs an agent of what to expect.

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?

There are no parameters, so baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the 100% schema coverage confirms no parameters exist. The description adds no extra parameter info, but that is acceptable.

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 retrieves a user profile with specific components (preferences, travel history, subscription tier, compliance summary). The name and description together provide a specific verb and resource, and the tool is distinct from siblings which handle visa checks, Schengen tracking, tax, and 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 implies usage for retrieving profile data and explicitly requires authentication. While it does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is clear and no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so the guidance is adequate.

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