Get my profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting login is required and that the response includes upload quota and private counts. This is valuable beyond the structured annotations, especially since there is no output schema.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core resource ('Profile of the logged-in SoundCloud user'), adds specific content details, and ends with the necessary login caveat. Every sentence 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 read-only profile tool with zero required parameters and complete schema coverage, the description covers the essential context: target user, included data, and authentication prerequisite. With no output schema, slightly more detail about the full return shape could help, but the description is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 both 'raw' and 'account' already documented in the input schema. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that the profile belongs to the logged-in user. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 title 'Get my profile' and tool name 'soundcloud_me' make the resource unambiguous, while the description clarifies it returns the logged-in user's profile, including upload quota and private counts. This clearly distinguishes it from a generic user-profile tool like soundcloud_get_user. The only minor weakness is that the description uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the intent is unmistakable.

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 states the prerequisite 'Requires login' and establishes that this targets the logged-in user, giving implicit context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as soundcloud_get_user for other profiles or explain when not to use this tool. Usage is implied rather than contrasted.

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