language_profile

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful scope by saying the response includes identity, classification, endangerment and description status, and per-dataset feature values. It does not discuss pagination or default limits, but with an output schema present and strong annotations, that is a minor 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource and enumerates the returned information without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a profile lookup tool.

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 rich annotations, fully described schema, and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context to understand what the tool returns and when it is useful. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly distinguishing itself from sibling lookup tools, but otherwise it is complete.

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%, so the input schema already explains language, dataset, and limit semantics. The description reinforces the 'one language' and 'per dataset' framing but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states that this tool returns a comprehensive profile for one language, listing Glottolog identity, classification, endangerment, description status, and feature values. It is more specific than a generic lookup, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as find_language or filter_languages.

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 phrase 'Everything known about one language' implies that this is the tool to use when a full language profile is needed, rather than a search or listing tool. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives among the sibling tools.

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