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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping (this is a profile-listing endpoint, not the risk endpoint itself) but does not disclose additional behavior such as response format or edge cases; with annotations present, the added value is moderate.

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 naming the action, the target endpoint, and the content. Every word earns its place and there is no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 catalog tool with full annotation coverage, the description is complete: it states what the agent will receive (supported profiles and how each weights the six physical-risk sub-scores) and ties it to the correct endpoint. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently conveys the return intent.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no input semantics are needed; the description simply confirms it is a parameter-less listing operation.

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') with a clear resource ('supported site profiles for /intel/site-risk') and specifies the content ('how each weights the six physical-risk sub-scores'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like site_risk (risk evaluation) and intel_risk_profiles (general risk 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 description clearly implies when to use it: whenever an agent needs the valid site profiles or their weighting behavior for /intel/site-risk. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, stopping just short of the strongest possible guidance.

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