profile_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned, that costs are live, that the profile auto-infers from `request`, and that zero-arg calls enumerate profiles — enough to imply a read-only, advisory tool. It stops short of explicitly stating there are no side effects or that the brief is a snapshot versus a live fetch, so a small gap remains.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the when-to-call rule in the first two sentences; every sentence earns its place. The long parenthetical enumeration of verticals is the bulkiest part — useful scope information, but it bloats the text and could be trimmed.

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 read-only advisory tool with two fully documented optional params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger condition, degenerate call, and return contents. Nothing critical is missing, though the absence of any note on whether the brief is cached or live keeps it short of complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it confirms that omitting everything lists profiles and that `request` drives auto-inference and is echoed back so intake can be filtered. That interaction semantics goes beyond the schema's field text.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource (a vertical playbook) and then enumerates exactly what that playbook contains: intake questions, model routing with live costs, per-model prompt formulas, multi-tool workflows. The vertical coverage list nails the scope, and it is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, which are all generation/listing tools.

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 gives explicit ordering guidance ('Call this FIRST when the user's request belongs to a known vertical'), an explicit degenerate call ('Call with no args to list available profiles'), and a follow-up workflow ('ask the user only the unanswered intake questions, conversationally'). An agent knows precisely when to reach for this instead of going straight to generate_image/generate_video.

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