Get Profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose an important scope constraint (the profile is always the authenticated student, not an arbitrary user) and that the payload is a compact summary, but it says nothing about authentication failure behavior, caching/staleness of 'pending stats', or whether the data is read-only in practice.

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 sentence with the resource front-loaded and the field breakdown in a tight parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, and an agent can read the whole contract at a glance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes the payload and its self-scoped nature. For a zero-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only edge behavior (unauthenticated calls, refresh semantics for 'pending stats') is unaddressed.

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 schema has zero parameters, so parameter semantics baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by anchoring the tool to 'the authenticated student', clarifying that no user identifier is accepted or needed.

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+resource: it returns an identity card for the authenticated student, and enumerates what that contains (ukid, user type, tenant/college, pending stats). It is clearly distinguishable from the subject-matter siblings (get_calendar_events, get_drive_usage, etc.), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 implied rather than stated: 'the authenticated student' signals this is a self-scoped call needing no arguments and no target identifier. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when another tool would be preferable, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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