Get profile

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: the tool requires validated credentials and fails with a clear guidance action. No contradictions with annotations.

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: the first defines the core function, the second adds prerequisite and error handling. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return data, prerequisite, and error resolution. It provides sufficient information for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema provides no information. The description adds value by listing the return fields (profile details, balance), but this is not parameter semantics per se. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 fetches the user's public profile (description, social links, follower counts) and their USD paper-trading balance. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_balance by combining these elements, and explicitly labels it as read-only.

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 specifies a prerequisite (existing chart.observer account) and error handling (direct user to sign up via browser). While it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings, the combination of profile and balance provides context for when to use this tool over others.

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