insync_get_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: specific field classes are never returned (photo, picklists, credential-shaped fields), which tells the agent what it will not find and prevents pointless retries. It stops short of describing identity resolution or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The positive scope comes first and the exclusion clause second, which is the right order for an agent scanning for capability before constraints.

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 one optional enum parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and what is deliberately omitted — enough to call the tool correctly. It leaves open which patient is resolved (presumably the authenticated one) and what happens on failure, which are minor for a read-only single-record get.

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% and the single `view` parameter is documented at length in the schema itself (compact vs full, default, and why there is no 'raw'). The description says nothing about `view`, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured field — baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (the patient's demographic profile), then enumerates the field families returned — name, date of birth, contact details, other scalar fields. It also draws an explicit content boundary (no photo, picklists, or credential-shaped fields), so an agent can distinguish this from the many list_* siblings without opening the schema.

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 implies the use case (fetching the caller's own demographic data) and the exclusions hint at where to go for picklists or credentials, but it never names an alternative tool or states a condition for choosing this one. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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