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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds that it lists profiles 'for posting', which gives some behavioral context but doesn't disclose additional traits like pagination or response format. With annotations covering the key behavior, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the essential information. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and the sole filter adequately. It might lack details about the return format or default behavior when filter is omitted, but for a list tool with good annotations, it is nearly complete.

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 100%, meaning the schema itself documents the single parameter well. The description mentions the optional filter but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is correct.

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 clearly states the action (list), resource (social media profiles), and purpose (for posting). It also mentions optional filtering by profile_group_id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like profile_groups_list and others that deal with different resources.

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?

It describes when to use the tool (to list profiles for posting) and the optional filter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the context is clear enough for most use cases.

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