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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: coverage limits, freshness, sourced compatibility, BYOK/billing facts, and the edge case of included agents whose release archive is unavailable.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action and then adds edge-case and alternative-tool guidance. The first sentence is a long enumeration of returned data domains, which is slightly heavy but still earns its place by helping an agent judge whether this tool covers the needed information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, but the description still gives a robust preview of covered domains. Combined with the zero-parameter, read-only nature of the tool, it provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent 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 a specific verb and resource ('List coding-agent profiles') and enumerates the data domains covered. It distinguishes this tool from coding_agent_releases by redirecting changelog paging to that sibling, so an agent can tell the tools apart without opening schemas.

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 names an explicit alternative for one use case ('Use coding_agent_releases to page through source-linked changelogs') and notes that agents with unavailable archives are included, with a hint to 'inspect state.' It does not cover when to prefer coding_agent_detail or coding_agent_upgrade, so a small gap remains.

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