get_agent_profile

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the payment mechanism and trial limitation, which is useful. But it does not describe side effects, permissions beyond the auth token, or response behavior beyond the listed contents, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise sentences, first states purpose, second adds payment caveat. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose and key usage caveats. It lists output components, which helps set expectations, though no explicit return format is given. Adequate for the complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including the payment_signature flow. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond schema, so 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 explicitly states the tool's function with a specific verb 'View' and resource 'an agent's decision profile', listing concrete components (trajectory shape, EE patterns, activity summary). It also differentiates via ARA observation and payment model, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on decisions or sessions.

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?

It provides clear context about payment requirements (x402, trial not covering it), which indicates when this tool is necessary. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios compared to sibling tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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