infomaniak_get_my_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond those: it reveals that the tool acts on the currently authenticated user/account, requires the SASESSION cookie, and is manager-private, plus what current_account_id means. This enriches transparency without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose and then pack useful details (returned fields, usage guidance, auth requirement) into tight phrasing. No filler or redundancy; every clause adds information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to enumerate return types. It covers the purpose, usage context, and auth prerequisite, making it complete for a zero-parameter identity tool with strong annotations.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description has no parameter semantics to add because there are none; it instead describes the rich output surface, which is appropriate for a no-arg profile tool.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Get the identity of the currently-authenticated Infomaniak user.' It enumerates returned fields (name, email, language, country, timezone, current_account_id, security posture) and explicitly frames its role as confirming which user/account the MCP acts on behalf of, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_my_security or list_organizations.

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 gives an explicit usage directive: 'Use this first to confirm which user + account the MCP is acting on behalf of.' It also states a prerequisite (requires SASESSION cookie, manager-private). It does not discuss when not to use or name alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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