Read the user's profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that this content is injected as background into every call, and it sketches the shape of the returned data (identity, contacts with name/relationship/phone/notes, style, boundaries). It does not cover auth or rate limits, but those are unlikely concerns for a local profile read.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the content enumeration. It is dense but every clause adds information about what the profile contains. Slightly list-heavy but nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so reasonably by naming the categories of data returned, including the nested contact fields. Adequate for a zero-parameter read tool, though a sentence on when the profile is refreshed or how it relates to update_profile would complete it.

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 the schema fully documents the input surface and no parameter description is required. Baseline 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify or omit.

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+resource (read the user's profile) and enumerates the profile's contents — identity, contacts with their fields, communication style, and boundaries — which meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like list_contacts or update_profile. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so a 5 is not warranted.

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?

"which every call gets as background" is genuinely useful routing context — it implies the profile may already be supplied and that this call is for retrieving it explicitly. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool named for related needs (e.g. list_contacts for people data).

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