Get User Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile of this read tool is covered. The description adds value beyond the annotations by explaining that the two account IDs serve different roles (ownerId on activities, userProfilePK on wellness records) and by listing the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 two tight sentences and front-loads the core purpose before delivering the high-value keying detail. There is no filler, and every phrase contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is structurally complete: it says what the tool returns and clarifies the one subtle distinction (profileId vs id) that an agent needs to use the value. The only noticeable gap is it never explicitly states the profile belongs to the currently authenticated/connected user.

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 the schema correctly reflects that, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description wisely focuses on the semantics of the returned IDs, adding more value than any parameter documentation could here.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get user profile information', then enumerates exactly what is returned (display name, user name, full name, both account ids). It further clarifies the semantic distinction between profileId and id, which resolves a key ambiguity and distinguishes this tool from summary-style siblings like get_user_summary.

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 provides clear context by explaining that profileId is the ID other Garmin data is keyed by, so an agent can infer this tool is the way to obtain the canonical profile key for cross-referencing activities, wellness records, and other endpoints. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, which keeps it from a 5.

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