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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: scoping to 'this account', the fact that profiles only override specific weights, and that unspecified signals fall back to defaults. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The subsequent paragraphs provide useful domain context, though the cold email/security bot examples are slightly illustrative and could be trimmed. Overall, it is well-organized and not overly verbose for the amount of context it delivers.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential points: what is returned, the meaning of profiles, and how they relate to defaults. It references show_defaults for further detail. It could mention edge cases (e.g., empty list behavior) but that is minor for such a simple read-only tool.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to add about individual parameters. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate, and the description does not waste space on parameter details.

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 states the exact verb+resource: 'List all custom scoring profiles on this account' and specifies what is returned ('profile names and their custom weight overrides'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_allowlist (which lists allowlist entries) and show_defaults (which shows default weights), by focusing on custom profiles and overrides.

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 explains when profiles are useful ('Different use cases need different scoring') and explicitly points to an alternative: 'Use show_defaults to see all 25 signals and their default weights.' It also clarifies the relationship between profiles and defaults, giving the agent clear context for choosing this tool over show_defaults.

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