Get Money Lover user info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints that authentication is required ('authenticated profile') but does not state what happens when no valid token exists, how the token override interacts with the default auth context, or what the returned profile contains. For an operation with zero annotation coverage this is a gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It's efficiently written, though its brevity is partly why behavioral details are missing — the compactness is good, the content is thin.

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?

This is a simple tool — one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects — so a minimal description is nearly sufficient. But for a read operation it would benefit from stating the fallback behavior when no token override is supplied and whether unauthenticated calls error out. Adequate but lean.

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% on the single token parameter ('Optional access token override'), so the schema already documents it. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema conveys, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource (retrieve the authenticated profile) that distinguishes it from the data-fetching siblings (get_wallets, get_categories, get_transactions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from login, which also concerns authentication — the boundary between 'fetch the profile' and 'authenticate' is implied rather than stated.

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 on when to call this tool or when to prefer it over siblings. Given that the token parameter is described as an 'override,' the description never states that prior authentication (via login) is a prerequisite, nor does it mention any condition under which this should or shouldn't be used.

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