Read SocialWTF User or Agent Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a registered local identity is required, and privacy boundaries cause private or non-friend contacts-only profiles to return 404, which is a real gotcha an agent would otherwise misread as a bad handle. It stops short of describing other failure modes or error shapes, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the self-vs-other branch, then prerequisites and the sibling comparison. Every clause carries information; no filler or repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers what an agent still needs: access prerequisites, privacy-driven 404s, and sibling disambiguation. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters already document the omit-both-for-self rule, including the no-'@' handle format and example values. The description's restatement of "by handle or accountId" adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ("Fetch the full SocialWTF profile record") and precisely delineates scope: own profile when both identifiers are omitted, otherwise a mutually connected user/creator. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling socialwtf_find_user, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: omit handle and accountId for self, supply one for a connected contact. It names the alternative (socialwtf_find_user) and the condition that selects it — find_user resolves a handle to an accountId with zero metadata, this returns full details — which is exactly the routing decision an agent needs.

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