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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by noting the data is 'public-safe' and 'static, not live repo health', which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond what annotations convey.

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 sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a clarifying sentence about the data source. Every sentence is efficient and contributes value.

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 simple interface (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns (list of profiles with specified fields) and clarifies the static nature. Could mention pagination or limit behavior, but otherwise sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (limit and attentionState). The description mentions fields like 'freshness' and 'proof counts' but does not add new information about the parameters themselves. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear verb ('List'), a distinct resource ('repo answering profiles'), and lists key fields (repo id, attention state, freshness, proof counts). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_repo_profile (single vs list) and other list tools.

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 notes that profiles are static artifacts from a specific source, implying a limited use case, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_repo_profile or list_corpus. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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