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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by mapping to the underlying API call (GET /campaigns/{campaign}/profiles) and disclosing the response envelope (data plus pagination), which matters given there is no output schema. It stops short of noting rate limits, default page size behavior, or what the pagination object contains beyond its presence.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: purpose, endpoint mapping, and return shape, with the scoping constraint front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With no output schema, disclosing the { data, pagination } envelope is exactly what an agent needs to consume results, and pagination parameters are covered by the schema. Minor gaps remain around how this differs operationally from raisely_list_profiles and whether the nested 'params' filters interact with the typed limit/offset.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (limit, offset, params, campaign) are already documented in the schema, including the escape-hatch 'params' object. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying the campaign is a path identifier; baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('list fundraising profiles') plus the scoping constraint ('for a specific campaign'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling raisely_list_profiles. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the reader inferring that the unscoped tool exists.

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 leading 'Convenience:' signals this is a shortcut for the campaign-scoped case, implying you should use it when you already know the campaign. However, it never states when to prefer raisely_list_profiles or raisely_request instead, nor any prerequisites such as needing a campaign uuid first.

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