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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results carry account counts and profile_id, but since an output schema exists, that return detail is largely redundant; no pagination or ordering behavior is described.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the core meaning and then the usage guidance, with zero waste. The trailing "Example: {}" is slightly unusual phrasing but earns its place by signaling a no-argument call.

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 two-parameter read with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, domain meaning, and the downstream use of profile_id. Nothing critical is missing, though a note on how results relate to accounts_list would make it airtight.

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% with both limit and cursor fully documented, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes only the "Example: {}" hint that the tool can be called with no arguments, adding marginal value beyond the schema's zero-required-parameter definition.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists profiles") and goes further by defining what a profile is ("named groups of accounts, for example one per client or person") plus the fields returned (profile_id and account counts). It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like accounts_list, which is the main gap.

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 a concrete when-to-use: "Use it to scope searches and agendas with profile_id", which tells the agent why it would call this first. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, and it doesn't say how this differs from accounts_list, so it stops short of a 5.

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