Get my profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by mentioning it requires an API key, takes no parameters, and errors on missing/invalid key, which are behavioral details beyond annotations. Not a full 5—could mention response format or exactly when stripe_connected is present.

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 reasonably concise, front-loaded with the core action and output fields. It includes necessary usage context and a parenthetical limitation, but the second half could be trimmed slightly; still, every sentence contributes.

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 tool, the description is complete: it specifies the exact purpose, the fields returned, use cases, limitations, and authentication behavior. With no output schema, the description fully conveys what the agent gets back. Sibling context shows it fits well among a broader set.

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 has zero parameters, so the description needn't explain parameters. However, it effectively communicates that no parameters are needed and explains the output fields, providing semantic value for what the tool returns. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since params are 0.

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 clearly states it fetches the authenticated account's own creator profile, listing specific fields (id, username, display name, bio, public profile URL, stripe_connected). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting there is no tool for looking up others' profiles, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: confirming which account a key belongs to, getting own profile id for tools requiring UUID, checking stripe_connected before discussing paid posts. Also clarifies when not to use it (for others' profiles) and states it can be used to test authentication via errors.

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