get_capability_profile

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world hints, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive query with flexible data. The description adds value by specifying the tool's design intent ('buyer-side agent evaluation') and the snapshot's content scope, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or caching behavior beyond the forceRefresh parameter in the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently adds context in the second sentence. Every phrase ('machine-readable snapshot,' 'buyer-side agent evaluation') contributes meaning without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and zero-waste for a tool with clear annotations and schema.

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 complexity (retrieving a comprehensive product profile) and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It outlines the snapshot's components and the tool's design intent. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from hinting at the return format (e.g., structured data like JSON), but this is a minor gap given the annotations provide safety context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three optional parameters (includeOutcomes, includeTrustSignals, forceRefresh) with their defaults. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of 'verified outcomes' or 'trust signals,' but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Returns a machine-readable snapshot') and resource ('what your product actually does and who it's for'), listing key components like capabilities, outcomes, trust signals, pricing, and integrations. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting it's 'Designed for buyer-side agent evaluation,' which none of the sibling tools mention.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Designed for buyer-side agent evaluation'), which helps differentiate it from siblings focused on scoring, classification, or data retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, such as get_icp_profile or get_persona_profile, which might overlap in purpose.

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