get_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the profile is public and the raw email address is never exposed due to PII. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, or response format, which are relevant for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the most important distinguishing detail (PII exposure) without wasted words. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose, the target resource, expected fields, and a privacy constraint. It could be more complete by mentioning return format or not-found behavior, but these are minor gaps for such a simple tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly clarifies that listing_id refers to a counterparty listing, not the caller's own listing, which adds semantic value beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the id format, where it comes from, or whether it accepts external vs internal identifiers.

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 uses a specific verb 'Look up' and a clear resource: 'a counterparty listing's public profile.' It also states the purpose ('identity verification') and gives example fields, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_my_listing (own listings) and register_profile (creation).

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 use case: identity verification against a counterparty listing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as get_my_listing or search_directory, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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