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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already cover the safety profile; the description adds the analysis scope, the compact issue-table output with line and fix, and an environment prerequisite for auto-fixing. The auto-fixing note is slightly ambiguous, but because the tool is framed as profiling and returning results, it does not contradict the read-only annotation.

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?

Four short sentences each carry load: the analysis scope, the output shape, the routing rule, and the environment dependency. The most important verb-resource information is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 read-only analysis tool with a 100%-covered schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it appropriately: what it checks, what it returns, when to prefer it, and a critical operand for auto-fixing. There is no output schema, but the return format is described well enough.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the optional methodName default and an objectName example. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Profile') and a specific resource ('X++ object'), and enumerates the exact issue classes it detects: N+1 queries, queries in loops, missing field lists, row-by-row inserts/updates, and missing firstOnly. It also differentiates itself from validate_best_practices by positioning itself as performance-specific, so an agent can select it confidently.

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 states an explicit trigger ('Only call when performance is explicitly the concern') and an explicit exclusion ('for general quality use validate_best_practices'), naming the alternative tool. This is exactly the when/when-not guidance that lets an agent route correctly.

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