read_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description's remaining burden is lighter. It usefully discloses the two return shapes (summary vs. single instrument), which goes beyond the annotations. It says nothing about failure behavior when no profile exists, nor what terminal_id scopes, which for an open-world tool leaves real 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the two-mode behavior. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, nothing to cut.

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?

With only two optional parameters and no output schema, the definition is close to sufficient, and it does describe both return modes. The unexplained terminal_id parameter and the absence of any error or no-profile-saved behavior keep it from being complete.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only half does: symbol is well explained via the summary/instrument split. terminal_id is never mentioned in the description or the schema, so an agent has no basis for supplying it or omitting it.

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: 'Read a saved broker profile', which is distinguishable from capture_profile, list_profiles and compare_profiles, the nearest siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings to reinforce the distinction, and it never says how a particular profile is identified, but an agent can tell broadly what the tool does.

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 a clear internal branch: omit symbol for the summary, pass symbol for one instrument. That is useful conditional guidance. However, it offers no routing versus list_profiles or compare_profiles, no prerequisites (does a profile need to be saved first?), and no indication of when terminal_id matters.

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