hcp_get_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the scope and return content but does not mention access requirements, sensitivity of consent data, behavior for invalid/unknown NPI, or whether the response could be large. For a read operation, the lack of side-effect disclosure is acceptable, but more would strengthen transparency.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, then lists the returned content categories without repetition. No filler or redundant wording.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description is largely complete: it names the key input and the high-level return categories. It does not describe failure modes or permissions, but the low complexity and clear single parameter make the tool callable with confidence.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including the 10-digit format and an example. The description only restates the NPI-based lookup, so it adds little semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for full schema coverage.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Full profile for one HCP') and identifies the key input (NPI) and the main content areas (demographics, consent status per channel, engagement summary). This clearly separates it from sibling list/search/aggregate tools by emphasizing a single-HCP full-profile retrieval.

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 clearly implies the usage context: call this when you have a specific NPI and need the complete profile for that HCP. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as hcp_search for finding an NPI or hcp_engagement_summary for engagement-only data, so there are no stated exclusions.

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