read_profile

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Read' does communicate a non-mutating operation, which is meaningful, but the description says nothing about behavior when the campaign does not exist, permissions, or what the profile contains. For a simple one-parameter read this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single short sentence with the scope constraint placed immediately after the action. No filler, no redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the action and resource but does not describe what the returned profile contains or how a missing campaign is handled, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. Minimum viable rather than complete.

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% and the single 'campaign' parameter already includes a type and an example ('default') in the schema. The description adds only the framing that campaign scopes the profile lookup, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (candidate profile) scoped to a campaign, which cleanly separates it from the sibling update_profile. It does not explicitly contrast itself with other read siblings like read_campaign_config or read_cover_letter, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read counterpart to update_profile, and nothing tells it how this differs from other read tools in the sibling list.

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