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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does so by disclosing the structure of the returned data (sections, multiple-choice options) and how the result feeds other operations, though it says nothing about caching, auth/permissions, or size.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its structure, followed by a single routing sentence and the backing endpoint. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant padding.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden itself, and it does: it enumerates the nested entities and their key fields. An agent can call this and interpret the response with no further context.

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 nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. The identifiers it lists (field_id, option_id, name) are return-value fields, not inputs, but they usefully signal the keys an agent will later pass to breeze_update_person filters.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List profile fields' = the church's profile layout) plus an explicit account of the return shape (sections, fields with field_id/field_type/name, options with option_id/name). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like breeze_list_tags, 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?

It states concrete downstream uses: reading person details, building list_people filters, and writing fields via breeze_add_person / breeze_update_person, which effectively tells the agent when this tool is a prerequisite. It does not name an alternative tool that returns similar metadata or state when this call is unnecessary, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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