get_member_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It partially meets it by naming the endpoints and implying a fallback to a member-specific endpoint when one is available. It does not cover auth needs, error behavior, or what happens with an empty member_urn, leaving clear gaps.

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 one concise sentence with the main verb and object front-loaded. The second clause is somewhat ambiguous but compact, and there is no filler.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and an output schema, but the ambiguous 'if provided' and silence on auth prerequisites and on omitted member_urn behavior leave real gaps. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without making external assumptions.

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 0% and the description never mentions member_urn, its format, optionality, or how it maps to endpoint selection. The parameter name and title are self-describing, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clear verb and resource ('Get member profile') and identifies the endpoint family (/v2/userinfo or member-specific endpoint). It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling whoami, but the resource and endpoint orientation make the purpose recognizable.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like whoami, nor does it explain auth prerequisites or when member_urn is needed. The phrase 'if provided' hints at conditional behavior but does not state a decision rule.

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