run_odin_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, what the output format is, or what happens when multiple location filters are combined. Without these details, an agent may misuse or misinterpret results.

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?

The description is highly concise: a single sentence for purpose, a brief cluster list, data source statement, and a structured Args section. No redundant or vague sentences. The most important information 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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values need not be described. The description covers parameters, data source, and cluster semantics. It lacks any mention of optional vs required filter behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a profiling tool with good schema coverage.

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 has zero parameter descriptions, but the description's Args section adds meaningful context: example values for location filters, explicit year range (2004-2023), and cluster_id meaning (0-6 with labels). This compensates well, though it lacks explanation of filter interplay.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Profile respondent mobility behaviour using 7 data-driven clusters') and immediately lists the clusters, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'run_odin_query' which imply different operations.

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 implies usage contexts by naming the data source (ODiN respondents) and the clustering output, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance. The 'profile' verb implies analysis, but without clear exclusion criteria.

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