My Foran account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Because there is no output schema, the field list in the description is genuinely useful disclosure of what comes back. But it omits any behavioral detail such as what happens with an expired session_key or whether the balance is live versus cached.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the most distinctive information (wallet balance, loyalty points) is front-loaded. The only flaw is structural: without a leading verb the sentence reads as a data label rather than a tool definition.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the field enumeration covers most of what an agent needs. Still missing are the relationship to the overlapping foran_wallet sibling and any failure behavior, both relevant given the crowded sibling set.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains that session_key comes from foran_login. The description adds nothing about the parameter, but with full coverage the baseline of 3 applies.

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 enumerates the profile fields (name, phone, wallet balance, points, order count), which lets an agent infer this reads the logged-in customer's account. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the action ('retrieve the current customer's profile') is only implied. It also overlaps ambiguously with the sibling foran_wallet, which presumably returns the wallet balance alone.

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 when-to-use guidance at all — nothing says when to pick this over foran_wallet, foran_my_orders, or foran_my_addresses, all of which return subsets or neighbors of this data. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are stated.

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