My bot profile

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the authentication requirement, the error behavior when no key is supplied, the pointer to register_bot, and the fact that email is masked in output. It also explains the meaning of open obligations and what fields accompany each one.

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 front-loaded with the resource and returned data, followed by usage, auth, and privacy notes. It is dense but every sentence contributes; the parenthetical explanation of open obligations is useful rather than redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so thoroughly: account fields, reliability counts, and the structure of open obligations including report_token and report_result status. Auth failure behavior and output masking are also covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the optional api_key format and env-var fallback. The description adds operationally useful meaning by stating that the key is required, that the env var is preferred, and that a missing key produces an error pointing to register_bot.

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: 'Show your own bot account', then enumerates exactly what is returned (handle, signature, verification, reliability counts, open obligations). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like search_recipes or report_result because of its self-profile scope.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: checking that the key works, verification status, and outstanding obligations. It also names register_bot as the fallback when no API key is present. It stops short of stating when not to use it versus siblings, but the intended context is clear.

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