dsgx_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. It discloses the URL pattern and that it returns wallet + verified status, but it does not state whether this is a read-only network fetch, whether it can fail (e.g., profile not found), whether it requires authentication, or what happens on error. For a tool that likely performs an external HTTP GET, this is a meaningful gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the URL pattern and key return fields. It is concise and every phrase earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit return-value phrasing.

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 simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the core purpose and the parameter. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not disclose failure modes, response shape beyond 'wallet + verified status', or whether the profile is fetched live. This is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about edge cases.

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%: the only parameter, 'login', is documented as a GitHub login with an example. The description adds the URL pattern context (dsgx.pages.dev/<login>), which reinforces the parameter's meaning but does not add substantial new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('developer support profile'), and identifies the URL pattern (dsgx.pages.dev/<login>) plus the key data it returns (wallet + verified status). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings by name.

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 implies usage: call it with a GitHub login to fetch a profile. It does not state when to prefer this over siblings like gdbx_did_resolve or gdbx_name_resolve, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives. The context is clear enough for a simple lookup, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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