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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only; returns published documentation' largely restates them. It does add useful behavioral context by pinning the spec version and indicating the content is static published docs, but it says nothing about the response shape (markdown vs. JSON) for the non-schema sections.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the version and mode options come early. The deep parenthetical nesting makes it slightly dense to parse, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter, read-only documentation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and when each mode applies. The one remaining gap is the return format for prose sections versus the JSON Schema mode, which the absence of an output schema leaves undocumented.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum values are already self-describing, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount beyond the schema by clarifying that import_code covers 'the CMP2 import code and the older CM1 share code,' but it leaves the other nine section values unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Returns the ConsoleMouse profile format') and pins a version (profile-v1 1.32.0), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It implicitly separates itself from format_examples by describing itself as a 'quick reference for writing profiles and macros,' but it never names that sibling or any other, so the differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for consulting the format when writing profiles and macros, and the section list hints at which mode to pick. There is no explicit when-to-use versus format_examples, profile_describe, or profile_validate, and no guidance on choosing 'full' over individual sections beyond the parenthetical defaults.

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