get_profile_urn_sg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the internal data sources: CustomizationID comes from the profile_registry, while ProfileID comes from a local constant. It also discloses the provenance and verification status of the guidance, which is more transparent than typical. It does not mention error cases or response format, but the output schema covers the latter.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent paragraphs add useful implementation and recommendation context. The third paragraph is slightly lengthy with caveats about verification status, but it still earns its place by preventing over-reliance on the recommendation. Overall it is well-structured and not bloated for the information it conveys.

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 one-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the purpose, the source of each returned value, the recommended parameter choice, and the legacy alternative. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed in the description. No important context for correctly invoking this tool is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the implications of choosing PINT_SG versus BIS3 and the legacy positioning of BIS3. This enriches the bare enum-like parameter description with decision-relevant semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the CustomizationID (BT-24) and ProfileID (BT-23) for a Singapore profile.' This clearly identifies what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the unique output fields and Singapore scope make the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives concrete guidance on which parameter value to choose: 'PINT_SG is the recommended profile for new senders' while BIS3 is 'positioned as legacy.' It also clarifies that this is not enforced as a hard default, so callers must choose explicitly. It does not discuss when to use this tool versus sibling tools, but for a parameter-driven lookup the profile recommendation is the key usage context.

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