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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it documents pagination semantics (next_page null on last page), the compact/abridged nature of descriptions (~90 chars, description_abridged flag), and the exact result fields. That is substantial behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then return shape, then usage rules in three dense but well-ordered sentences. The long enumeration of return fields is justified only because no output schema exists, but it does make the description heavier than strictly needed.

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, describing the returned fields (count, matching_count, page, next_page, note, profiles[...]) is necessary and is done precisely, including the abridging caveat and the pointer to get_stack_profile for full data. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 page/limit/search/category are already fully documented in the schema (baseline 3). The description reinforces the paging loop but adds no new syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond what the schema states.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("List reusable stack profiles") and immediately defines the domain term ("versioned stack templates") plus the visibility scope (org + public profiles from other orgs). An agent can distinguish this from get_stack_profile and create_stack_profile without opening any 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 ("ALWAYS check this before hand-building a stack ... when the user asks for a 'standard', 'usual', or previously saved setup"), names the follow-up tool (get_stack_profile) for detail, and states the preference rule (instantiating an existing profile beats rebuilding from charts). Very little inference is left to the agent.

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