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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description needn't assert safety. It adds real value by disclosing the return envelope `{ data:[...], pagination }`, which matters because there is no output schema, and by naming the exact API path so behavior is predictable. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the purpose, and nothing is padded. The parenthetical and endpoint reference each earn their space, though the telegraphic 'Filter via `params`' is borderline redundant.

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 a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, endpoint, filtering channel, and return shape — enough for correct invocation. It stops short of explaining pagination iteration (limit/offset loops) or auth expectations.

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 coverage is 100%, with limit, offset, and the free-form `params` object all documented, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only 'Filter via `params`', which is essentially restatement; it does not enumerate supported filter keys or explain merge precedence beyond what the schema already says.

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 posts') and clarifies what a post is ('campaign/profile updates'), plus the underlying endpoint GET /posts. It is clearly the read counterpart to raisely_create_post, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and the note that filtering goes through `params`, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus raisely_list_campaign_profiles or raisely_list_profiles, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer the selection criteria.

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