get_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific profile fields returned, which is useful context but does not disclose behavioral details like authentication requirements or whether it returns the current user's profile. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence that lists exactly the relevant fields. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 parameterless read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could specify that this is the authenticated user's profile, but given the tool name and the output schema, the missing nuance is 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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds semantic clarity by enumerating the fields included in the profile, which helps the agent understand what data it will receive. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 names the resource explicitly (the account profile) and lists its contents (birthdate, gender, timezone and language). It is not a tautology and is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like get_biometrics or get_macro_targets, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the context in which it is appropriate. The usage is only implied by the name and description; with many sibling tools, this is a minimal signal.

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