Get your account 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 value beyond them by disclosing the concrete shape of the returned profile (name, email, mobile, three notification opt-in states), which is not derivable from the annotation set. It does not mention auth requirements or behavior when fields are unset.

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 tight sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource and ending with the sibling pointer. Every clause earns its place by either naming the resource or routing the agent.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description does enough by enumerating the returned fields so the agent knows what a call yields. It stops short of noting authentication expectations or what happens when optional profile fields are absent, a minor residual gap.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed ('your account profile') and spends no words on non-existent parameters.

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 (Show) and resource (your Artsonia parent/fan account profile) and enumerates exactly what fields are returned: name, email, mobile, and notification opt-in states. It also names the sibling it complements (artsonia_set_notifications), so an agent can place it immediately among the 14 sibling tools.

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 closing phrase 'Read-only complement to artsonia_set_notifications' tells the agent this is the read side of a read/write pair, which is genuine routing guidance. It lacks any negative condition or prerequisite (e.g., what to do if the account is not signed in), so it falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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