My ITMO profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful scoping fact that the subject is the signed-in user and lists the returned fields, but says nothing about authentication requirements or what happens when no session exists. Comparable to the calibration HIGH example, where annotations carried safety and the description earned a 3.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope ('signed-in') comes first and the field list follows. Nothing to trim.

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 tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is exactly the gap an absent output schema leaves. The remaining omission is auth/session-failure behavior, a minor gap given the annotations already mark it a safe, idempotent read.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The listed return fields (ISU number, name, faculty, group, course) are output information, not input semantics, but they do not hurt.

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 specific resource (the profile) and pins the scope to 'the signed-in ITMO student', which implicitly distinguishes it from itmo_get_person and itmo_search_people without naming them. It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'signed-in ITMO student' signals this is the self-profile tool rather than a lookup by identifier. No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no pointer to itmo_get_person for fetching another person's profile. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the routing.

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