get_operator_profile

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

The annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: metrics are 'computed from raw token observations,' operator IDs are pseudonymous, and the data is synthetic. This helps the agent set expectations about data provenance and privacy without contradicting the annotation.

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 a single, tightly structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the key content areas. The second sentence adds relevant context about pseudonymity and synthetic data without any fluff. Every element earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential facts: what is returned, how metrics are derived, and important caveats about data provenance. The agent has enough information to decide whether to call it and to understand the response shape.

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 fully documents the single parameter with description and examples, so the description does not need to add much. The description's mention of pseudonymous operator IDs reinforces the parameter format, but adds no fundamentally new semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get operator profile') and enumerates the exact contents: operator details, 5 canonical metrics with values/percentiles/status, and benchmark availability. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_operator_similarity or get_composite_score, which target different aspects of operator data.

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 this is the entry point for basic operator profile information, including metrics and benchmark availability. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over related siblings such as compare_operator_to_reference or get_operator_similarity, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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