get_messaging_profile

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation and says it returns response data, but it doesn't mention authentication requirements, possible errors (e.g., profile not found), or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first line and a structured Args/Returns format. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easy to scan.

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 getter, the description gives the bare minimum: what it does and a generic return type. Since there is no output schema, the promise of 'messaging profile details' is circular and doesn't inform the agent about the response structure. It also lacks error behavior and is therefore incomplete for a tool with no annotations or output schema.

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 description includes an Args section that restates the parameter name and says it is 'the ID of the messaging profile to retrieve,' which adds no meaningful information beyond the schema's property name and type. With schema coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate with format, length, or other constraints.

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 opens with 'Retrieve a messaging profile by ID,' which clearly specifies the verb, resource, and retrieval scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_messaging_profiles and create_messaging_profile, even though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_messaging_profiles or get_connection. It does not mention prerequisites like having a profile ID, nor does it state when other tools would be more appropriate.

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