get_user_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the default behavior (authenticated user if no ID), it lacks critical information: authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens with invalid IDs), or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a user profile by ID') and follows with essential context ('Defaults to the authenticated user'). There is no wasted language, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and high schema coverage (100%), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address key behavioral aspects like authentication, errors, or return values. The description covers the basic use case but leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly in all scenarios.

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 100%, with the parameter 'userId' fully documented in the schema (including type, format, and default behavior). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides—it merely restates the default behavior. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without extra param info in the description.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('user profile by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'get_user_profiles' (plural) and 'search_user' by specifying retrieval of a single profile by ID rather than multiple profiles or search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to retrieve a user profile by ID, with the default behavior of returning the authenticated user's profile if no ID is provided. This helps differentiate it from 'get_user_profiles' (which likely returns multiple profiles) and 'search_user' (which likely involves query parameters). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, preventing a score of 5.

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