get_me

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes safety, and the description adds meaningful non-obvious context: email, country, and product tier are never present due to a 2026 API change. This prevents an agent from expecting or depending on these fields, going beyond what the annotation or schema alone would communicate.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first states the purpose and primary fields, the second disposes of an important caveat. All content earn its place and the core message is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only profile lookup, the description is complete. The annotations handle the safety profile, an output schema exists for return types, and the description covers both what is present and what is notoriously absent. A caller has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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, so there is nothing the description needs to explain about inputs. The schema is trivially fully covered at 100%, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description focuses instead on output semantics, which is appropriate.

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 ('Return') and names the exact resource: the current user's Spotify profile. It lists the concrete fields returned (id, display name, uri, images, follower count), making its purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from sibling tools that cover playback, playlists, or listening history.

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 clearly establishes the context: use this when you need the current user's profile identity and follower information. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with this profile-retrieval purpose, so the appropriate use is obvious.

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