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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds the useful fact that results are scoped to profiles published on XCOPYBook, but says nothing about pagination via limit or what happens with an empty query.

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 sentence with no filler, and the resource identity is front-loaded ahead of the searchable fields. Nothing redundant or repeated from structured fields.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It is thin on match semantics, result ordering, and how limit interacts with the result set, which an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema documents only types, defaults, and bounds. The description partially compensates by explaining that query matches name or alias, which is real added meaning, but it never mentions limit, its default of 50, or its 200 cap.

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?

Names a specific resource (collector profiles published on XCOPYBook) and its filterable dimensions (name or alias), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_collector_profile and search_works. It lacks an explicit verb ("list" only appears in the title), so the operation type is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent is left to infer that this is the browse/list path while get_collector_profile is the single-record path, and nothing says whether query is a substring, prefix, or fuzzy match.

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