A profile's details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only a partial view of the payload (name, address, contact, state), and says nothing about permission requirements, error behavior for an invalid or inaccessible profile id, or what 'state' means here.

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, and the resource is stated before the field list. It is efficient, though the terseness is close to under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description does the minimum of sketching the returned fields, which partially compensates for the absent output schema. It still leaves 'state' undefined and gives no hint of failure modes, which matters for a tool whose id defaults implicitly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `profile` parameter is documented with default resolution (WISE_PROFILE_ID, then the only business profile) and a pointer to list_profiles. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

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 names the resource explicitly (one profile) and enumerates the content fields it returns: name, address, contact details and state. An agent can tell this is a single-record fetch rather than a list, though it never contrasts itself with list_profiles or get_me, so sibling differentiation comes only from the singular phrasing.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to call get_profile versus list_profiles to enumerate, or versus get_me to resolve the acting user. Any routing decision is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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