Get a creator profile

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses status-dependent return behavior, failure codes (timed_out, profile_unavailable, source_failed, enqueue_failed), retry_after_seconds for unfinished answers, display_markdown handling, untrusted_content fields, and credits_charged behavior. This gives the agent substantial operational context for a read-only polling tool.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and lifecycle states. Every clause adds useful information about waiting, failure modes, display output, untrusted fields, or credits, with 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return states and important response fields. It covers queued/analyzing, succeeded, failed, retry_after_seconds, display_markdown, untrusted_content, and credits_charged, which is complete for an agent to call and interpret this polling tool.

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 50%, so the description must carry extra meaning for the remaining parameter. It explains wait_seconds well, including the 50-second cap, hold behavior, and retry_after_seconds follow-up, and it implies profile_id comes from analyze_creator. It does not restate the profile_id pattern, but the added semantics are still meaningful.

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 and resource: 'Read a profile started by analyze_creator.' It also enumerates the possible lifecycle states (queued, analyzing, succeeded, failed), which clearly distinguishes this retrieval tool from the sibling analyze_creator tool that starts the profile.

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 clearly situates the tool after analyze_creator and explains that wait_seconds can hold the answer until the profile finishes or the wait ends. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention alternatives such as quote_creator_profile, but the lifecycle context is strong enough for correct tool selection.

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