get_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the operation is a read (get) and discloses that the password parameter is needed when password protection is enabled. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any potential side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements beyond the password note.

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 concise: one sentence for the purpose followed by clear, bullet-like explanations for each parameter. Every sentence adds value with no waste. Its structure is front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 profile retrieval, the description is fairly complete. It tells what the profile contains and explains both parameters. It does not cover error conditions or return format, but given the lack of an output schema, this is acceptable. Slightly more detail on possible errors would improve it.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so effectively: 'account' is described as which configured account to use (alias or email) and noted as optional when only one account exists; 'password' is described as required when password protection is enabled. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 states 'Get the Gmail profile' and enumerates the specific fields returned (email address, message/thread totals, historyId). This verb+resource combination is precise and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_message or get_thread, which retrieve different data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It lacks explicit context such as 'Use this to retrieve account-level information; for individual messages use get_message.' There is no mention of when not to use it, leaving agents to infer from the purpose alone.

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