ofw_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 essentially nothing beyond the annotations—no detail on what 'profile information' includes, whether it requires an active session, or failure modes with no parameters.

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 filler, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, though it could have afforded one more clause to clarify the returned data.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It doesn't explain the return shape or co-parent edge cases, which would matter for an agent consuming the response.

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 the baseline for parameter semantics is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly implies no input is needed to fetch the current profile, and the empty schema is self-consistent.

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 verb and resource ('get...profile information') from a named system, which is clearer than a tautology. But 'current user and co-parent profile information' is vague about what fields are returned, and it doesn't differentiate why to pick this over the sibling listing/retrieval 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the lack of parameters or what happens if the user has no co-parent linked. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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