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

The 'Read-only' phrase largely restates the readOnlyHint annotation, earning little credit. However, since there is no output schema, the note that each entry includes a share id meaningfully describes the return content. Nothing is said about ordering, pagination, or behavior when the profile has no shares.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and immediately states the downstream purpose (share ids for unshare_stack_profile). No redundant or filler 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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both what comes back (organisations plus share ids) and how the result is consumed. Minor gaps remain around empty-result behavior and pagination, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the two parameters already document the profile_id/profile_name alternative with UUID sourcing. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — 'List the organisations a stack profile is shared with' — which is clearly distinct from share_stack_profile and unshare_stack_profile. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling read tools like get_stack_profile, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'with each share's id for unshare_stack_profile' tells the agent exactly why and when to call this: to obtain share ids before revoking a share. It stops short of stating preconditions or exclusions (e.g., permissions needed to view shares), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not guide.

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