ac_getProfileById

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals one important behavioral trait (the campaign creation precondition), but doesn't describe what the tool actually does when successful, error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'profile' refers to in this context.

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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that communicates a critical constraint. However, it's front-loaded with a limitation rather than the tool's purpose, which is structurally problematic. Still, it wastes no words.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which helps), but zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It mentions a critical precondition but omits the core functionality, parameter meaning, and relationship to sibling tools. For a tool that presumably retrieves profile data, this leaves too many gaps.

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%, and the description provides absolutely no information about the single parameter 'profileId'. It doesn't explain what a profileId is, where to find it, or its format/constraints. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 fails to state what the tool does - it only describes a precondition for receiving a response. It doesn't mention retrieving a profile, which is implied by the name 'ac_getProfileById'. This is misleading rather than tautological, as it describes conditions rather than purpose.

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 provides some guidance about when NOT to use the tool (when no campaigns exist), but offers no positive guidance about when to use it versus alternatives like 'ac_listProfiles', 'get_active_profile', or 'ac_GetAccount'. The context is incomplete and lacks sibling differentiation.

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