Read a profile

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

While annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it works without credentials and the follow-relationship fields only appear when a connected account is available. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 that states the core action and then lists return content. Every clause adds value without redundancy or extraneous detail.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear picture of what is returned and under what conditions. It lacks some potential edge-case detail but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Schema descriptions cover both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the schema already explains meaning and usage. The description's mention of 'one or more accounts' only paraphrases the actors parameter and adds no new semantic value.

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 states it returns the full profile for one or more accounts and enumerates specific content: bio, follower counts, labels, and follow relationships. This distinct resource and content list differentiates it from siblings such as get_followers or get_author_feed.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The note about working without credentials is a credential context, not a selection criterion, and no sibling comparisons are made.

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