Get CDP Guest Profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates a read-only, single-record lookup and identifies the profile as the output, but it does not mention behavior for missing guest references, authorization requirements, or response structure.

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, focused sentence with no fluff or repetition. The core action and identifier method are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple get-by-reference tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema or annotations, it would benefit from noting what fields the profile returns or how not-found cases are handled.

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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter, guestRef, including its uniqueness and role as an identifier. The description adds little beyond the schema's own parameter documentation, so a baseline score 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 a specific verb ('Retrieves'), resource ('guest (visitor/contact) profile'), and lookup method ('by guest reference'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like guest_search because it emphasizes a single profile retrieved by exact reference, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 the tool should be used when you already have a guestRef and need a single guest profile. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer guest_search or guest_upsert instead, or provide any exclusion criteria.

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