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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the crucial asynchronous behavior: it queues a hosted job and results must be fetched with get_job. That execution model is not visible in the annotations and materially changes how an agent should use the tool. It stops short of explaining job lifecycle, timeouts, or failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The functional output is stated first and the retrieval instruction second, which is the right front-loading for an asynchronous tool.

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 three-parameter async job with no output schema, the description tells the agent both what is computed and how to collect the result via get_job, which is the key missing piece. It could go further by noting that repeated calls with the same requestId return the existing job (matching idempotentHint), but the essentials are present.

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 67% (requestId and workspaceToken documented in-schema), so the schema carries most of the burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as clarifying projectId scoping or the retry semantics of requestId, leaving it at the baseline level for medium coverage.

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 a specific verb and output ('Return bounded types, missingness and cardinality diagnostics'), which tells an agent exactly what the tool produces. It does not name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like inspect_project or detect_schema_drift, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives a clear follow-up workflow ('Queues a hosted job; use get_job to retrieve its result'), which is genuinely useful for invocation. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose profile_dataset over related diagnostics tools such as inspect_project or detect_schema_drift, nor any prerequisite context, so usage is only implied.

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