Get a researcher’s public profile

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

Annotations already mark the call as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context that the data is the public profile and that fields like bio, country, and website are those the researcher chose to publish, clarifying visibility and consent. No contradiction with annotations.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the resource and key, then lists the contained fields. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, the nature of the data, and the lookup key. Nothing needed to invoke the tool 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?

The schema fully documents the single username parameter with format constraints and an example source (get_leaderboard), so description-level detail is unnecessary. The description merely restates 'by username' and adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource (public BugSecure profile of a researcher), the lookup key (username), and the profile contents. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action statement and does not directly name sibling alternatives such as get_my_profile, though 'public' and 'researcher' imply the distinction.

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 conveys that the tool is for retrieving a researcher's public profile, which implies the appropriate use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_my_profile for one's own profile, so the guidance is only implied.

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