get_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information beyond them: it explicitly states that tokens and encryption keys are not returned, which sets expectations about the response payload. It does not say what happens on an invalid or expired login, which would have completed the picture.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the output caveat second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description only needs to frame intent and scope, which it does. The one gap is failure behavior (what an agent should infer from an authentication failure), which is relevant to a tool whose stated purpose is login verification.

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 takes no parameters, so the schema leaves nothing undocumented and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, which is appropriate 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?

States a specific verb and resource (read one's own profile) plus the intent (verify login), which is more than a restated name. It is distinguishable from the login siblings (start_email_login, verify_email_login) by being a post-login profile read, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'to verify login' implies when the tool is used (session/token validation), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over verify_email_login or get_status, and no stated preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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