get_my_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the authentication requirement, which is genuine behavioral context. It stops there: no word on failure behavior when unauthenticated or on what the profile payload contains, so it only partially covers a read tool with zero annotation support.

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 tight sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the precondition trailing in parentheses. No filler or redundancy, though it is so terse that it leaves known gaps unaddressed.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read of the caller's own profile, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually and the auth requirement. No output schema exists, so return-format detail is not owed; remaining gaps (unauthenticated failure mode) are minor.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is closed (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-arg operation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the authenticated user's own profile'), and the word 'own' implicitly separates it from the sibling get_user_profile, which fetches an arbitrary user. Clear without opening either schema, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 parenthetical '(requires user auth)' gives the key precondition for use, which is real guidance. However, it does not state when an agent should prefer this over get_user_profile (e.g. 'use when you need the caller's identity, not a named user'), leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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