get_my_profile

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that credentials are required, that private contact data is deliberately excluded, and that the nickname arrives under untrusted_member_text, which is an important injection-safety signal. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from annotations or an empty 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?

It is front-loaded with the resource and then lists the returned data compactly with parenthetical detail. The sentence is dense and long, but nearly every clause carries genuine information rather than filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing what comes back, and it does so field by field, including intentional omissions and the untrusted-text wrapper. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description's mention of required environment credentials adds a small amount of operational meaning beyond the empty schema. No further parameter detail is needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (my member profile) and enumerates the returned fields: membership date, licence status, responsibilities, FFCAM skills, attendance rate, nickname. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_my_registrations and get_my_history, which return different data.

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 implies usage: it is the tool for the authenticated member's own profile and notes the required credentials (CLUB_ALPIN_EMAIL / CLUB_ALPIN_PASSWORD), which is real guidance. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling instead, but the field list makes the boundary fairly evident.

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