Get Profile (FatSecret)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond those hints. It does not explain what 'profile status' entails, whether authentication is required, or what kind of data will be returned.

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 short but under-specified. The single sentence does not meaningfully earn its place because it merely restates the tool's name without providing actionable detail, similar to the low-scoring 'Process' example.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description should clarify the return payload. 'Your FatSecret profile status' is vague and ambiguous, especially alongside sibling tools like fatsecret_check_auth_status, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's actual result.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description has little to add. Per the rubric, a tool with no parameters receives a baseline score of 4, and the description does not present any conflicting or confusing parameter information.

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 'Your FatSecret profile status' is a noun phrase that loosely paraphrases the tool's name without a clear verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns'. It fails to distinguish the tool from sibling tools such as fatsecret_check_auth_status, which also relates to account status.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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