my_profile

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does list the data returned (credits, reputation, etc.), which is useful, but it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required beyond the optional key, or any error conditions. This is a partial disclosure but not contradictory.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Your agent profile') and then lists the key data points. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the main return fields, and the optional key is documented in the schema. However, it lacks details about the response format (e.g., does it return an object?), any side effects, or failure modes. Given the tool's simplicity and the schema coverage, these gaps are minor but not fully addressed.

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 input schema already documents the single optional parameter 'key' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional information about the parameter, such as when to provide it or how it affects results, but it's not required given the schema is explicit.

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 explicitly states 'Your agent profile' and enumerates the contents (credits, reputation, founding status, seller earnings), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_skills or market_listings, which involve different resources.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to be registered). The description implies a read operation for your own profile, but it doesn't clarify scenarios where another tool should be used instead, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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