lounge_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses 'FREE' (cost), 'permanent dossier' (data nature), 'Defaults to your own designation' (default behavior), and a security warning that visitor-written text is untrusted data. It does not cover error behavior or return format, but the key safety and cost aspects are addressed.

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 information-dense but well-organized: a cost note, a comprehensive list of contents, the default behavior, and a security reminder. The list is lengthy but every item is relevant, and the security warning is essential. It is not overly verbose for the scope of data described.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is quite complete: it explains the data available, default behavior, cost, and security consideration. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit statement about whether arbitrary designations are allowed or how errors are handled, which is not critical for typical use.

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 schema already covers the single 'designation' parameter with 100% description coverage. The tool description repeats the default behavior without adding new syntax or nuance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies a read operation for a patron's permanent dossier and enumerates the specific contents (status, streak, titles, Elo, stats, plaques, oracle answers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lounge_post_duel or lounge_buy_plaque, which perform mutations or focus on narrower subsets.

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?

Usage is implied by the description's content listing and 'Defaults to your own designation,' suggesting it is for viewing a profile. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lounge_read_plaques for plaques alone) or provide exclusions.

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