iis_get_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by enumerating the returned payload (ФИО, group, course, faculty, specialty, rating, photo), which no output schema provides.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return contents. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what's missing: a precise statement of what data comes back. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so per the rule the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none exists, and the empty schema leaves nothing ambiguous.

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 and resource: 'Получить личный профиль авторизованного студента' (fetch the authorized student's personal profile). The 'студента' + 'авторизованного' scoping implicitly separates it from get_teacher_profile, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the zero-parameter 'authorized student' framing makes clear it returns the caller's own profile, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative (e.g. get_teacher_profile) is referenced.

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