user_code_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant and adds nothing. Its real contribution is naming the return contents (typed rules, unresolved conflicts, untyped-row count), which matters because no output schema exists. That is useful but modest, so a 3 sits above the annotation-only baseline without reaching rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and dense with the component list up front. The one wasted element is the redundant 'Read-only' sentence, which merely echoes the annotation.

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, the description must convey what compiling returns, and it lists the three components reasonably well. It does not describe the shape of the compiled profile or ordering, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool this is close to sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter information is needed or missing.

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 ('Compile') and resource ('your user-as-code profile from current memory facts') and enumerates the components it produces (typed preference/constraint rules, unresolved conflicts, untyped-row count). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling user_profile_get. The only drag is the slightly opaque 'user-as-code' framing, which assumes prior context.

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 line 'One user's view: user_profile_get' routes the agent to an alternative and implies this tool is the compiled whole-profile view. However, it never states when to use this tool itself, and no other siblings (e.g. user_profile_record, user_profile_get) are contrasted beyond the single hint.

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