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. The description adds the useful fact that the result is a fixed, closed set of four generateable profiles. It does not, however, clarify whether the list is static or environment-dependent, nor describe return shape.

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 with no filler. The enumerations of concrete profiles add real information rather than restating the name, and nothing could be trimmed without losing content.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the four profile names an agent will receive, which partly substitutes for a return-type definition. Combined with annotations covering safety and the trivial zero-parameter schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the static-vs-dynamic nature of the list is left unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to document. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty schema matches the parameterless description, so no compensation is needed.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus a precise resource ('MCP client setup profiles mcp.film can generate'), and it enumerates the concrete values (Claude Code, Claude Desktop, Cursor, hosted remote clients). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling listing tools such as list_film_capabilities or list_film_categories, which cover 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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need to know which client configuration profiles are available. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g. get_install_config, which likely operates on one of these profiles). Implied-only guidance places it at the minimum viable level.

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