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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to reassert safety. It usefully discloses that the tool enumerates supported profiles and explains their sub-score weighting, which is the meaningful behavioral content beyond the annotations.

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?

One compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every part earns its place: what is listed, for which endpoint, and what explanatory detail is included.

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 zero-parameter, read-only reference tool, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that the six sub-scores are not named, and there is no output schema, so an agent must call the tool to learn the exact sub-score labels.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description correctly focuses entirely on what the tool returns rather than parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource: supported buyer profiles for /intel/company-signal, plus the weighting of six sub-scores. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like intel_risk_profiles or intel_compliance_profiles, which cover different profile types.

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 phrase 'for /intel/company-signal' gives clear context for when this tool is relevant, distinguishing it from other intel_*_profiles tools. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, but the endpoint scoping is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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