get_feature_profile

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves a profile along with its features (parcels) and gives examples of feature contents, which is useful return-value context. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or any operational constraints, leaving a gap for a mutation-free but still behaviorally opaque tool.

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 a single well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then supplies compact examples. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job of explaining what is returned (profile plus features/parcels) and illustrates the domain. It omits edge cases like missing profiles or permission requirements, but for a simple read tool with fully documented parameters, it is largely complete.

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%, so all parameters are self-documented. The description adds examples of profile types (system, transport, service) and their contents, which gives some meaning to the profile_type values, but it does not mention the 'solution' parameter or clarify default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get one UX 2.0 feature profile with its features (parcels)') and gives concrete examples of profile types, making it clear what the tool returns. It distinguishes itself from list_feature_profiles by specifying 'one', though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The examples of profile types indirectly hint at valid usage, but there is no stated context or alternative routing.

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