alphaportal_get_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set, but says nothing about authentication requirements, behavior when the session is unauthenticated, or data freshness — modest added value on top of structured fields.

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, front-loaded sentence with the verb and subject first and the payload detail in parentheses. There is no filler and nothing that fails to earn its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs. It is nearly complete for a trivial zero-param read, with only edge behavior (unauthenticated session, error shape) left unaddressed.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the target is implicit (the signed-in user) rather than passed in.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the signed-in user profile") and even enumerates the returned fields (name, email, role, account), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling alphaportal_get_account, leaving a plausible ambiguity unresolved.

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 phrase "signed-in user" implicitly scopes usage to the current session and hints it is not the tool for arbitrary accounts, which is useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative to compare against, so an agent must infer the routing.

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