get_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implicitly communicates a read-only, non-destructive operation through the verb 'Get', and explicitly notes the authentication requirement ('authenticated'). It also discloses the exact return values, which is the main behavioral output. It lacks explicit statements about side effects or rate limits, but the simplicity of the operation makes this acceptable.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action and outputs; the second gives a practical use case. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, and a use case. It is contextually complete for the tool's scope.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the return fields, giving the agent a clear expectation of the output even without an output schema.

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 the specific verb ('Get'), the resource ('authenticated Gmail user profile'), and the exact fields returned (email address, total message count, thread count). It distinguishes itself from sibling email tools by focusing on account-level profile data rather than message operations.

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 phrase 'Useful to verify the connection' provides a clear use case and context for when to invoke this tool. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools or list when not to use it, the description makes its purpose evident enough that an agent can decide appropriately.

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