get_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the shape of the data returned (device count, business profile presence), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior for unknown contacts. Adequate but not rich given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then lists fields with no filler. Efficient and well-structured, only slightly compressed by the field enumeration.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the readOnly annotation covers safety. The listed fields give an agent enough to know what comes back, leaving only the sibling-routing guidance as a genuine gap.

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 50%: the required 'contact' param is documented as 'JID, numéro ou nom', but the optional 'account' param is undocumented in both schema and description, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The mid-range coverage sets the baseline at 3, but the description does nothing to compensate for the gap.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (a contact's public profile) and enumerates the distinct fields returned: Info text, photo, verified name, device count, and business profile. This differentiates it functionally from siblings like get_contact, though it never explicitly names that boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_contact, search_contacts, or any other sibling, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case purely from the listed fields.

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