get_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'SIDE EFFECTS: none.' It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation by stating the tool returns only counts, not a message listing, and positions it as a liveness check.

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 compact and well-structured: the core function is first, followed by USE WHEN, DO NOT USE, and SIDE EFFECTS. Every sentence carries actionable information with no 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 simple no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description provides all necessary context: what it returns, when to use it, when not to use it, and that there are no side effects. Nothing important 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?

The tool has zero parameters and full schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description usefully clarifies what the response contains, satisfying the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 authorized account') and specifies exactly what is returned: email address plus total message/thread counts. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from message enumeration by pointing to 'search' as the tool for listings.

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 explicit USE WHEN guidance (confirming which mailbox is connected, cheap liveness check) and explicit DO NOT USE guidance (enumerating messages), with an alternative named. This gives clear decision criteria for an agent.

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