get_profile

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It indicates a read operation ('Get details') but does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, or whether any state changes occur. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists specific return fields. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 parameterless read operation without an output schema, the description provides the essential context: what is returned (tier, KYC status, compliance limits, active business context). An agent can understand the tool's purpose and output shape without additional details.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage by definition. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get details') and identifies a precise resource: the currently authenticated merchant profile, listing concrete fields (tier, KYC status, compliance limits, active business context). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that target specific businesses, invoices, or transactions.

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 that this tool is for retrieving the current merchant profile but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like get_business or get_active_business. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of sibling tools, leaving selection partially to inference.

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