get_profile

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that this is a read operation. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what data is returned, including consent/suppression status. No contradictions with the 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 concise, front-loaded sentence that states the action, targets, and return fields with no filler. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only lookup with a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the lookup keys and the returned profile fields. The only minor gap is that the required 'account' parameter is not reflected in the prose, but the schema makes that requirement explicit.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantics by presenting email and profile_id as alternative lookup paths, but it does not clarify the required 'account' parameter or explain how it relates to the other identifiers, which would have added extra value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up'), identifies the resource ('customer profile'), and states the lookup keys ('email or profile ID') plus the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or report on campaigns, flows, or segments.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this tool when you need a single customer profile by email or profile ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the lookup-by-identifier framing is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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