Get Agent Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat that. It adds value by clarifying that the profile is the 'active' one and that it includes constraints, which gives the agent a fuller picture of what to expect beyond the raw schema. No contradictions.

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 sentences with zero redundancy. The core purpose is stated first, followed by a compact parameter usage note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter), the existing output schema (which will document return values), and the safety annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly. No critical details are missing.

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%, so the description must carry the full burden for the single parameter. It clearly explains that profile_id fetches a specific profile and that omitting it loads the default. This directly compensates for the sparse schema, exceeding the baseline requirement.

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 states a specific verb (load and return), a clear resource (agent trading profile), and adds the qualifier 'with its constraints.' It is distinct from the sibling tools like get_trade_intent or get_account_summary, and no ambiguity exists about what it retrieves.

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 gives parameter-level guidance (use profile_id or omit for default), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. Since no sibling tool directly overlaps (e.g., a 'list_profiles' or 'get_profile' does not exist), the lack of exclusion criteria is acceptable, but the guidance is not fully explicit.

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