account_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' sentence largely repeats structured data rather than adding new behavioral detail. The only added signal is that the record belongs to the authenticated owner (no user identifier needed), which is useful but thin for a tool with this annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, so it does not fully earn its place, keeping this just below the top mark.

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 zero-parameter read of a known resource with an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs in order to call it correctly. Missing only sibling-level guidance and any hint of what the profile record contains.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the fact that no user/ID argument is required, which the 'signed-in owner' phrasing loosely conveys.

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 ('Return') and resource ('profile/account record') with the scope 'signed-in owner'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that cover rides, passes, and recharge history, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs the current user's account details. There is no statement of when to prefer this over siblings like account_month_amount or owned_passes, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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