Get My Profile

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

'Read-only' restates readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint/destructiveHint already declare the safety profile, so that sentence adds little. However, the field enumeration tells the agent what data it will receive and the cost comparison with whoami adds genuine behavioral context. With annotations carrying the safety story, this is a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. Scope is front-loaded and the routing hint follows immediately.

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?

With no input params and no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden itself, and it does by naming the fields returned. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it. Nothing material is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter talk.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get your full Canvas profile') and enumerates the returned fields (name, bio, avatar, primary email, calendar feed URL), which makes the tool's scope unambiguous. It also names the sibling that covers the narrow case, so an agent can separate it from whoami without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'For just your ID and name, whoami is cheaper.' This is an unambiguous when-to-use-this-vs-alternative instruction with a stated selection criterion (cost/narrowness).

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