ariel_get_profile

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

readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already cover the safety profile, and the description does not contradict them. It does not add behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or how the digest output differs from JSON, so credit is limited. The profile framing is consistent, making this a 3 rather than a 1 or 2.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple tool. It could include brief usage guidance, but it is easily parsable and wastes no tokens.

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?

There is no output schema, so a sense of what 'profile information' includes would be valuable; the description does not provide it. It also doesn't disambiguate from overlapping sibling tools. Still, with two well-described parameters and read-only annotations, the description is minimally viable.

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 100%, with descriptions for both actor and format and an enum for format. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level guidance, but the schema already carries that burden, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('a user's profile information'), so the agent knows what the tool returns. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like ariel_get_author_feed or ariel_get_followers, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 statement about when to use this tool instead of ariel_get_author_feed, ariel_get_followers, ariel_get_follows, or other profile-adjacent tools. With 37 siblings, leaving this entirely to inference is a meaningful gap.

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