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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly matches a read-only listing operation. It adds useful context by saying the result includes weights, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, or how these profiles relate to the hiring_signal tool. There is no contradiction with 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, the target resource, and the output composition with no filler. Every phrase adds information essential to understanding the tool.

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, non-destructive listing tool, the description is complete: it says what is listed, what product area it belongs to, and what accompanies each profile. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context about parameters or return shape.

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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document and the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately uses its space to define the resource and output rather than repeating parameter details.

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 a concrete resource ('buyer profiles for /intel/hiring-signal'), and it adds that weights are returned as part of the output. It is clear on what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as intel_buyer_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 scoped phrase 'for /intel/hiring-signal' implies this tool should be used when hiring-signal buyer profiles are needed, and the listing nature of the tool suggests it is a read-only reference operation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named.

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