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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds that this is a GET operation, supports query-string filtering, and returns a paginated structure { data:[...], pagination }. It also clarifies the scope (individual/team pages) and explicitly names the Raisely endpoint, providing useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 description is three concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add relevant details about filtering and the return shape. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, how to filter, and the pagination structure. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially given the comprehensive parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, including descriptions for limit, offset, and the params object. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only offering an additional example 'type' in the filter list. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a 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 clearly states the tool lists fundraising profiles, specifically individual/team fundraising pages. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_campaign_profiles by describing the general resource (profiles) and reinforcing with the API endpoint GET /profiles.

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 provides implied usage through the filter examples (campaign, type, sort, order), indicating how to narrow results. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_campaign_profiles, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. This is sufficient for a general-purpose list but lacks direct comparisons.

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