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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so correctness is covered; the description still adds genuine context by disclosing the nested return structure (sections → fields → options) and the underlying endpoint GET /api/profile. Nothing behavioral is contradicted.

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 dense sentences with the resource declaration front-loaded and the consumer tools named afterward. Every clause carries information; 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description fully carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so at field granularity. Nothing an agent needs to call and consume this tool is missing.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline is 4. The description instead spends its words on the return shape, which is the useful thing here.

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?

States the specific resource (the church's profile layout) and enumerates exactly what is returned: sections, their fields with field_id/field_type/name, and options for multiple-choice fields. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling listers like breeze_list_form_fields and breeze_list_people.

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?

Explicitly names three downstream uses: reading person details, building breeze_list_people filters, and writing fields via breeze_add_person/breeze_update_person. That routes the agent well, though it gives no explicit 'when not to use' or contrast against the similar list_form_fields tool.

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