Get the signed-in OneHome user profile

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the GraphQL endpoint behavior, the access-denied case for user { }, and exactly what data is used in the fallback. This gives the agent an accurate model of how the tool behaves under different authentication states, with no contradiction to the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary return value, then explains the two authentication paths and fallback details without redundancy.

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 read-only profile retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the returned data, covers the main behavioral edge case, and the parameter semantics are fully handled by the input schema. The agent has sufficient information to invoke and interpret the result.

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 view parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema itself, including the compact/full distinction and the rationale for no field projection. However, the tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it returns the OneHome user profile plus attached consumer-share groups. It is specific about the resource and the action, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as onehome_get_groups or onehome_get_session_context, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides clear usage context by distinguishing the two session paths: full agent/registered users query the GraphQL user endpoint, while magic-link consumer-share sessions fall back to checkToken data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is strong and actionable.

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