get_messaging_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error cases, permissions) and output details (only mentions 'Response data containing messaging profile details' without schema). This is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a retrieval tool.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage (only a title 'Profile Id'), while the description explains that 'profile_id' is 'The ID of the messaging profile to retrieve,' clarifying its purpose and usage. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail format or constraints.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve a messaging profile by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('messaging profile'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_messaging_profiles' (which lists multiple) and 'create_messaging_profile' (which creates). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_connection' or 'get_phone_number' which are similar retrieval operations on different resources.

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 usage by stating it retrieves a profile 'by ID,' suggesting it's for fetching a specific known profile. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_messaging_profiles' (for browsing) or other retrieval tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks detailed alternatives.

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