profiles_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but it does not mention potential size, rate limits, or what data is included. This is minimal and leaves agents guessing about the response scope.

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 one concise sentence, action-first, with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool and front-loads the core function.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is functional but not complete. It does not explain what constitutes a 'full asset profile' or how it differs from other profile tools, leaving ambiguity about expected return content. Could benefit from a few clarifying words.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter ('ticker') with a clear description. The tool description repeats 'ticker' without adding additional context, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('full asset profile') for a ticker. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like profiles_summary or profiles_info by implying a comprehensive dataset. However, 'full' is not precisely defined, so it doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings.

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 this tool is for retrieving a complete profile, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like profiles_summary or profiles_statistics. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the choice to inference.

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