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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations by specifying that the tool returns buyer profiles along with their sub-score weights, giving the agent a concrete picture of the read-only result.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the operation, the scope, and the key output detail with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 no-parameter, read-only list operation with strong annotations, the description is complete: it names the exact endpoint context and the two output components (buyer profiles and sub-score weights). No output schema exists, but the agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. With no parameters, the baseline is 4; the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter guidance that would be unnecessary.

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 ('List'), a precise resource ('buyer profiles for /intel/compliance-signal'), and the output content ('sub-score weights'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic sibling profile tools such as intel_buyer_profiles or intel_risk_profiles by naming the exact endpoint/scope.

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 description gives clear context: use this tool when you need buyer-profile weightings specific to the compliance-signal endpoint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which keeps it a 4 rather than a 5, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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