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

Annotations already communicate that this is readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it returns profile names and category multipliers, but it does not discuss pagination, ordering, or output format; with annotations present, this is adequate.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, states the scope, and includes the key output detail. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary words.

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 parameterless read-only listing tool, the description sufficiently states what is listed, the relevant scope, and a key output attribute. Since there is no output schema, it could slightly expand on what 'category multipliers' means, but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema has 100% description coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description's scope phrase is the only semantic context needed, and no additional parameter explanation is required.

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'), names the exact resource ('buyer profiles'), scopes it to '/intel/company-change', and adds the output focus ('category multipliers'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like intel_buyer_profiles and other intel_*_profiles.

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 '/intel/company-change' scope provides clear context for when this tool should be called. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the domain is unambiguous enough for an agent to select correctly.

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