profile_checkup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that live=False is fast and side-effect free while live=True STARTS THE BROWSER, takes tens of seconds, and opens a visible window. It also explains what a 'skip' verdict means and why some checks do not apply, which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer elsewhere.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then args, then return shape — a sound ordering. The 'check competitors cannot make' sentence is promotional filler rather than operational information, which keeps it from a 5, but nothing else is wasted.

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, yet the description documents the return object (name, engine, live, summary, checks) plus the verdict vocabulary and the meaning of 'skip'. Combined with the side-effect disclosure for live=True, an agent has everything needed to decide and to interpret results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does for both parameters. 'name' is anchored to the exact identifier format reported by profiles_list, and 'live' is given a default, a cost profile, and a decision rule rather than just a boolean definition.

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 and resource ('run the consistency checkup on an identity') and immediately narrows the concept to fingerprint coherence. This is clearly distinct from siblings like proxy_check (proxy health only) and profiles_list (enumeration), so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions ('after changing an identity's proxy, and before trusting an identity with anything that matters') and an explicit exclusion for the expensive mode ('use it when you actually need measured proof, not for a routine look'). The live=False default is framed as the routine path, so the when/when-not decision is fully specified.

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