get_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the return values (did, exists, name, etc.) and the edge case for unknown DIDs (exists=False with a fixed-shape envelope). This provides strong transparency about what the tool does and its safety profile (read-only).

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 two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the return structure and edge-case behavior. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 there is only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, return shape, and edge-case. However, it lacks explanation of the DID parameter itself (what it is, format), which would make it fully complete for a tool with no annotation support.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'by DID' without elaborating on the parameter format, constraints, or what constitutes a valid DID. Since the schema offers no structural detail beyond type and title, the description should compensate but does not provide sufficient semantic meaning.

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 explicitly states it fetches a published agent card by DID, using specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'agent card'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_profile and publish_profile by focusing on read-only retrieval. The return format is also specified, making the purpose crystal clear.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a profile by DID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search or evaluation tools. No exclusions or contextual triggers are provided, so the guidance 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.