get_user_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds the genuinely useful behavioral constraint that lookups are PII-limited to accounts sharing a course, plus a pointer to the PII review doc. It does not discuss error behavior when no shared course exists, and returns are covered by the output 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?

One tight sentence with the scope caveat and the when-not front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The embedded docs path is the only element that may not resolve for an agent.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the definition supplies the crucial scoping and privacy context an agent needs to avoid misuse. Only the failure mode (no shared course) and the concrete alternative for broader lookups are absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (userid, course_id) are fully documented in the schema, including the omit-to-get-self behavior. The description only echoes the course scoping at a high level, adding no syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Get a user's profile') and immediately constrains the scope to a shared course, which prevents confusion with the enrolled-user listing siblings. It stops short of naming the concrete alternative (e.g., get_enrolled_users), so it falls just under the top mark.

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 parenthetical 'not a global user search' gives an explicit when-not, and the shared-course scoping tells the agent the prerequisite context required to call it. No sibling tool is named as the alternative route, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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