view_walker_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'view' operation, implying read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a public API. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 purpose and lists included data. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating core action from details), but it's appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter schema, the description provides basic purpose and scope. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., structured data vs. HTML), error handling, or dependencies, making it minimally adequate but incomplete for robust use.

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%, with the parameter 'walker_id' documented as 'The walker/caregiver ID or profile slug'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('view') and resource ('dog walker's full profile'), specifying what information is included (bio, certifications, reviews, photos, pricing). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_walkers' (list) and 'rate_walker' (action), though not explicitly. A 5 would require explicit sibling differentiation.

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 needing detailed profile information, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'search_walkers' (for finding walkers) or 'get_pet_report' (for pet data). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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