PSN account profile

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not burdened with stating that this is a safe read operation. It adds a little context by enumerating the returned profile fields, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, staleness, or relationship to refresh operations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact phrase with no filler and front-loads the core identity of the tool. It is appropriately terse for a zero-parameter read-only tool, though it reads as a fragment rather than a complete, well-formed sentence.

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 low complexity — no parameters, simple read-only behavior, and an output schema present — the description is mostly sufficient by listing the main profile fields. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that this is the authenticated user's account profile and by clarifying how it differs from psn_taste_profile, but these are minor gaps.

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 has zero parameters and fully covered schema documentation, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description has no parameter semantics to add because there are no inputs to explain.

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 identifies the resource — a PSN account profile — and lists the concrete data fields it exposes (Online ID, PS Plus status, trophy level, lifetime trophy counts). It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets,' and it does not directly distinguish itself from sibling psn_taste_profile, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus psn_taste_profile, psn_library, psn_refresh, or psn_recently_played. The intended use is only implicit from the name and fields; there are no exclusions, alternatives, or context conditions.

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