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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds that the profile is 'ready-made' and that each title comes with 'its door,' but it does not clarify what a door is or mention pagination, language behavior, or the analyzed_only default beyond what the schema states.

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 a single short sentence with no filler and is front-loaded around the core resource. Its compactness is effective, though the unexplained 'door' jargon slightly reduces how well the sentence lands.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, annotations, and high schema description coverage, the description provides enough context to locate the tool in the workflow by naming the slug source. It still leaves 'door' undefined in the description, but the schema's analyzed_only field supplies enough supporting context.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters, and a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds a small amount of meaning by tying slug to list_profiles and hinting at the 'door' concept related to analyzed_only, but it does not explain lang, page, or limit semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource as the titles of one ready-made profile and specifies that the slug comes from list_profiles, which helps distinguish it from list_profiles itself. It is less clear against siblings like search_titles or find_title, and the term 'door' is unexplained jargon rather than a plain verb-and-resource statement.

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 parenthetical '(slug from list_profiles)' gives one useful workflow prerequisite, implying the agent should call list_profiles first. However, it does not say when to choose profile_titles over alternatives such as search_titles or find_title, nor does it provide exclusions or clearer usage context.

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