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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the result includes (legal form, mandatory-details completeness) and the scope ('all profiles'). However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, empty results, or any partner-identification prerequisite.

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 short and front-loaded with the verb and object. The bilingual duplication adds a little length but is compact and useful for language coverage. Every key point fits in two concise statements.

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?

This is a simple read-only listing tool, and the annotations cover side-effect safety. However, the undocumented 'reasoning' parameter and the lack of any guidance about sibling tools leave gaps that an agent must resolve by trial or external knowledge.

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 0%, and the only parameter, 'reasoning', is left entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description. The description does not compensate for this gap, so an agent cannot know what value to pass or whether the parameter affects the listing behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('listet/lists') and a clear resource ('alle Absenderprofile des Partners / all of the partner's sender profiles'). It further distinguishes the tool by specifying the returned attributes: legal form and completeness of mandatory details. This separates it cleanly from siblings like sender_profile_get or sender_profile_upsert.

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 the scope ('all profiles of the partner') but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool instead of sender_profile_get, sender_profile_validate, or other list tools. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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