identity_get_principal_user_profile

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful authorization context via the access policy table, indicating which roles can call it, though it does not describe response shape or other runtime behavior.

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 deprecation notice and purpose are front-loaded, and the access policy table is useful for authorization. Some space is consumed by formatting artifacts and an endpoint string that repeats the annotation title, but the description remains reasonably compact.

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 deprecated, zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety and an empty schema, the description supplies the key missing context: deprecation status, alternative endpoint, and access requirements. It is complete enough for an agent to avoid selecting it except when intentionally handling legacy behavior.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and fully covered, making the baseline for this dimension a 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the currently logged in user's profile.' It also clearly marks the tool as deprecated, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from closely related sibling tools such as identity_get_logged_in_user or identity_get_logged_in_user_details.

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 '[DEPRECATED]' marker and 'Use this API instead: /cloudapi/vcf/preferences' give explicit when-not-to-use guidance and an alternative. The alternative is an API path rather than a sibling MCP tool name, so the routing guidance is clear but not perfectly integrated with tool selection.

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