query_profile

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

The description mentions 'Dynamic Context Retrieval' and returning only relevant sections, which adds useful behavioral context beyond the read-only nature implied by 'query'. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so adequately.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word 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-query tool with no output schema, the description explains the retrieval behavior. It lacks details on error handling or empty results, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 single parameter 'query' is well-described in the schema with an example. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score 3 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 clearly states the tool queries Akib Dabgar's professional profile and returns only relevant sections. The verb 'query' combined with resource 'profile' is specific and unambiguous. No sibling tools exist, so no differentiation needed.

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 for any question about the profile, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, the context is sufficient for an agent.

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