get_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and a closed world, so safety and repeat-call semantics are covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that the response includes the settable-field catalogue, which hints at the intended pairing with update_profile — but discloses nothing about freshness, caching, or auth requirements.

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 clause, front-loaded with the main payload and appended with the secondary one; there is no filler to cut.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and a zero-parameter read-only getter is inherently low-risk, so the description is nearly sufficient. The one missing piece is the explicit link to update_profile, which the 'fields that can be set' clause only gestures at.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter surface for the description to explain or for the schema to cover.

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 concretely names the resource ('the customer's stored profile') and adds the second payload ('the list of fields that can be set'), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It lacks an explicit verb and never names update_profile, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the phrase 'fields that can be set'.

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 statement of when to call this versus update_profile or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or context (e.g., login state). The phrase about settable fields hints at a read-then-write workflow but leaves the agent to infer it.

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