ads_client_profile_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does little: it does not say what 'recent' means, whether the call fails or returns empty when profile_id is unknown, whether history is truncated by default, or what the response shape is. Only the inclusion of dialogue history is disclosed.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the primary resource is front-loaded before the secondary history payload. Hard to trim further 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?

For a lookup tool with zero annotations, zero parameter descriptions and no output schema, this is thin. An agent still cannot tell the default history window, the not-found behavior, or the returned fields, all of which the description would have to supply.

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 0% for both parameters. The description gestures at dialogue history, which loosely maps to message_limit, but never explains that limit's default, its 500 cap, or the format of profile_id, leaving half the semantics undocumented.

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 ('Get one local client profile') and adds the secondary payload ('its recent dialogue history'). The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from ads_client_profile_list, though no sibling is named 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer from 'one' that this is the single-record counterpart to ads_client_profile_list; nothing about prerequisites or fallback behavior is given.

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