get_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value on top by stating the data scope (compact saved profile, no CV contents) and the caching/reuse contract. It doesn't cover failure behavior when no profile is saved, which leaves one behavioral question open.

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 with zero filler; the core action and the invocation timing are both front-loaded. The negative scope constraint ("Never reads a CV") is placed where it prevents the most likely misuse.

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 tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description supplies the two things structured fields can't: when to call it and that the result should be cached. Only the empty-profile/error case is left unaddressed.

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 no parameter meaning to add; baseline applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed by framing the call as unconditional at the start of a session.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Read the compact saved profile") and immediately narrows scope with "Never reads a CV," so an agent knows this is not a document-retrieval tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling update_profile, so the read-vs-write split is only implied by "until the user changes them."

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?

Unusually concrete timing guidance: call it once "at the start of a new search/chat" and reuse the returned fields for subsequent batches rather than re-calling. The when-not condition is explicit (until the user changes them). The only gap is that the tool that mutates the profile (update_profile) is never named as the alternative.

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