get_profile

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint not in the annotations: access to another user's profile requires authorization. It stops short of describing what an unauthorized or non-existent lookup returns.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary case (own profile) before the secondary one. Every word earns its place 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 one-optional-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral distinction between self and public reads. It is nearly complete, missing only error/authorization-failure semantics.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema provides only a regex pattern with no explanation of what username means. The description compensates by explaining that username selects an authorized public profile rather than your own, but says nothing about casing, lookup failure, or the authorization checks the value triggers.

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 (read) and resource (profile), and distinguishes two scopes: own profile versus another user's public profile. No sibling tool overlaps with profile reading, so sibling differentiation is unnecessary, keeping this short of a 5 only because the two modes are packed into one clause rather than stated crisply.

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 implicitly tells the agent when each mode applies (omit username for own profile, supply it for a public one), which is real usage guidance. However, it gives no exclusions, no note about what happens if the username is invalid or unauthorized, and names no alternative tool.

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