get_profile

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

The description lists the specific data fields returned, which adds transparency beyond the annotation (openWorldHint). However, it does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether this is a read-only operation, or any potential side effects. Given the minimal annotation coverage, the description provides some but not rich behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that lists the exact information returned. There is no wasted verbiage, and the most important information (what the tool does) 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 description lists the return fields, which substitutes for a missing output schema. It is complete enough for a simple, low-complexity getter tool. It could explicitly mention that the profile is for the currently authenticated user, but this is strongly implied and not a significant gap.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties object). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 'Get Angel One user profile' followed by a concise list of returned fields (name, email, mobile, exchanges, products, broker info). It uses a specific verb+resource structure and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_holdings or get_positions.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need the user's profile information. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions, but the context is unambiguous given the tool name and description. A 4 is appropriate because it gives clear context without formal 'when not to use' guidance.

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