line_get_profile

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, read-only operation, so the description need not repeat that. It adds value by naming the returned profile fields, but does not mention authentication needs, error behavior, or whether profile visibility depends on LINE user settings.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple profile-retrieval tool.

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 read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description usefully lists the returned fields. However, it leaves both parameters undocumented and does not explain the role of the optional access token, which an agent may need in order to call it correctly.

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, but it does not explain that user_id identifies the LINE user or what channel_access_token is for. The phrase 'LINE user's' gives only the loosest hint about the required parameter.

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 and resource: get a LINE user's profile, and enumerates the returned fields (display name, profile picture, status message). It is clearly distinguishable from LINE messaging siblings such as line_send_message or line_broadcast, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 is for retrieving a LINE user's profile, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like line_get_group_summary, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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