get_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the gating behavior ('every content tool refuses to run until then'), the no-inference policy ('nothing here is inferred from the environment'), and the downstream consequences of the answers (byline, voice, schema publisher, CTA links, canonical URL). This is rich context beyond what a bare read tool would suggest.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative 'CALL THIS FIRST' and well-structured into purpose, sequencing, and consequences. Slightly verbose in the detail about answers deciding byline/voice/etc., but every sentence conveys actionable information.

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 gating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains what it checks, what it returns (configured flag and questions), what to do in each branch, and how its results cascade into other tools. No material gap remains.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining that the tool returns a configured boolean and, when false, a set of questions to present to the user, which is meaningful return-shape context even absent a formal output schema.

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 (check) and resource (server setup/profile) with clear scope: whether set up and with what. Distinguishes itself from siblings like set_profile and reset_profile by describing a read/status check, and its 'CALL THIS FIRST' directive makes its role unmistakable.

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 says to call this first before anything else, explains the conditional branch (if configured is false, ask returned questions then call set_profile), and states that every content tool refuses to run until then. Alternatives and sequencing are fully specified.

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