get_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving data, implying a read-only operation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first specifies the tool's purpose and data fields, and the second provides usage guidance. There's minimal redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating data fields from usage).

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but omits essential context like authentication needs, rate limits, error scenarios, and response structure. For a tool with no structured data support, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents the optional client_id parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying it retrieves user profile data, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantics like usage examples or edge cases.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('user's profile information'), listing key data fields like user ID, name, email, and account details. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on user profile data rather than orders, holdings, or market data, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides implied usage guidance with 'Use this to get basic user details,' suggesting it's for general user information. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use criteria or named alternatives (e.g., compared to list_accounts for account-level details), leaving some ambiguity.

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