profil

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data fields returned and the default behavior (own profile without parameter), but it does not mention whether the tool can access other users' profiles, what happens with an invalid or empty 'uco', or any privacy/authorization constraints. The behavior is only partially 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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the resource and fields, then adds the key behavioral note about the default. It is efficient and easy to parse, though the lack of explicit sibling differentiation costs a point.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and default behavior. However, it lacks guidance on how to use the 'uco' parameter to view another profile, and it does not clarify the relationship to the sibling 'osoba' tool, leaving some context incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that omitting the parameter yields the own profile, which adds meaning to the optional 'uco' parameter. However, it does not explain the expected format of 'uco' (e.g., numeric string) or what the parameter does when provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clear verb+resource: it shows a personal page with fields like name, email, studies, program, form, status, and plans. It also distinguishes the no-parameter case as 'own profile', which helps differentiate it from the sibling tool 'osoba' (person lookup). However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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: without a parameter, it returns the caller's own profile; with a 'uco' parameter, it presumably returns another person's profile. This gives some context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'osoba' or other sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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