alphaportal_get_profile

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description reinforces this with 'Get' and adds valuable context by listing the exact fields returned, which goes beyond the annotation's generic hint. No contradictory behavior is mentioned.

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?

A single, concise sentence with no fluff. The resource and its key fields are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool does, what it returns, and that it's read-only (reinforced by the annotation). No additional detail is required to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers the input space. The description is not required to add parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 applies as there is nothing to improve.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('signed-in user profile'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, email, role, account). The resource is clearly distinct from sibling tools like alphaportal_get_account or alphaportal_get_settings, so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever the agent needs the current user's own profile data. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the scoping ('signed-in user') makes it obvious that this is the right choice for self-profile requests, while siblings target other resources (notifications, settings, students, etc.).

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