get_user_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions the output is '压缩 JSON' (compressed JSON) and lists the included fields. It implies a read-only query but does not explicitly state the absence of side effects or authentication requirements. The description is largely transparent but could mention that no modifications occur.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and return fields, while the second specifies usage context. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value by listing key fields (email, subscription level, available markets, expiration time, account validity, rate limit config). It also mentions compressed JSON format. However, it does not describe error responses or the exact structure, but for a simple read-only tool this is mostly complete. A minor improvement would be to note that it returns a single JSON object.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description naturally cannot add parameter semantics. According to the rules, with 0 parameters the baseline score is 4, and there is no need for additional param info. The score is appropriate.

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 clearly states it queries account and permission info for the current API key, listing specific fields (email, subscription, markets, expiry, validity, rate limits). The verb '查询' (query) and resource '账户与权限信息' (account and permission info) are specific. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_route_detail (routes) and configure (mutation).

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 explicitly states when to call: '仅在需要核对账户状态、可用市场范围或查看限流配额时调用' (only when needing to check account status, available markets, or rate limits). This provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives. However, given the simple scope, the guidance is sufficient.

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