read_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope context by naming the exact content types retrieved, but says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, or what happens when a profile field is empty.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key scoping claim ('record instead of a list') comes first. Slightly dense with the parenthetical list, but every clause carries 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 no output schema and no parameters, the description compensates by enumerating the returned content (profile text, social networks table, áreas de actuación). That is adequate for a parameterless read tool, though a note on behavior for missing fields would complete it.

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 is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly does not fabricate parameter guidance.

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 (Read) and resource (CvLAC profile pages) and explicitly scopes the content to fields that are single-record rather than list-based. It also names the sibling read_cvlac as the place these fields do NOT appear, aiding disambiguation. Minor ambiguity: it says 'two pages' but then enumerates three distinct items (profile text, social networks table, áreas de actuación).

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?

It gives one negative routing cue ('None of them appears in read_cvlac'), which implies when to prefer this tool, but never states a positive when-to-use condition or contrasts against other siblings like read_cvlac_detail or read_portfolio. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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