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

The description reveals what the response contains: a set of supported role profiles and their weighting for talent_pool, cost_pressure, tax_burden, connectivity, climate_resilience, and quality_of_life. With readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true already present, the added value is this content detail rather than safety disclosure. It does not contradict 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 well-constructed sentence front-loads the verb and resource before enumerating the six sub-scores. No wasted words, and the endpoint notation packs context efficiently.

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 reference tool, the description is complete: it states the target endpoint, the item type being listed, and the exact data elements contained in the weights. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, so no further caveats are needed. It gives an agent enough to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The absence of any parameter guidance is appropriate because none are required. It correctly avoids inventing arguments.

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?

Description opens with the imperative 'List' and identifies the exact resource: role profiles for /intel/location-score. It also names the six sub-scores that the profiles weight, which distinguishes it from sibling intel_*_profiles tools. Clear, specific, and not a tautology.

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/location-score' gives clear context for when to call this tool: when exploring location-score role profiles and weightings. It does not name sibling alternatives or directly state when not to use it, so it stops short of the explicit routing some descriptions provide.

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