get_user_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: lists exact fields returned, explains that authenticated calls include viewer-specific fields (following, followedBy, muted, blocking, blockedBy), and mentions rate limiting. No contradiction; adds value.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states core function and output, second adds authentication nuance, third provides alternatives and rate limit info. Front-loaded with essential info, no redundancy.

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 tool with one required param and an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, return fields, auth behavior, alternatives, and rate limiting. No gaps. Sibling tools are numerous but differentiated well.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'actor' parameter (handle or DID). Description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a user profile from AT Protocol and lists key fields (handle, display name, bio, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting auth-dependent richness and explicitly names alternatives (get_user_summary, get_user_connections). The verb 'retrieve' plus resource 'user profile' is specific.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: works without auth but is richer with auth; recommends get_user_summary for condensed overview and get_user_connections for follower/following lists. Also mentions rate limiting. Tells when and when not to use this tool effectively.

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