get_sitter_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what information is retrieved but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). This leaves gaps for an AI agent to understand operational constraints.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource, followed by specific details. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it easy 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and data returned but lacks context on behavioral aspects (e.g., auth, errors) and does not reference the output format, which is missing from the schema. This leaves the agent with some uncertainty about execution.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'sitterIdOrUrl' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify format examples or edge cases), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 the action ('Get detailed profile information') and the resource ('for a specific sitter'), with specific details about what information is included (bio, reviews, services, rates). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_sitters' (which likely lists multiple sitters) by focusing on a single sitter's details, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling 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 usage when detailed information about a specific sitter is needed, as opposed to 'search_sitters' for finding sitters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_favorites' or 'message_sitter', and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a sitter ID from search results).

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