get_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses the response encoding (JSON). It does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens when profile_id is unknown (empty result vs error), any authorization or visibility constraints, or rate limits.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and return format front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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 tool is a simple single-parameter read with an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should at minimum identify what profile_id refers to and confirm read-only semantics, which it omits.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description needed to define what profile_id actually is (a numeric user id, a handle, an internal identifier, a subject slug). It adds no meaning beyond the bare property name and required flag.

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 full profile of a subject as JSON" names a specific resource (a subject's profile) and implies retrieval of the complete record, which separates it from the listing behavior implied by the sibling list_profiles. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with list_profiles or stating what 'subject' means, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to call get_profile instead of list_profiles, get_trace, or search_research, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing a known profile_id) are stated. The agent must infer the use case purely from the name.

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