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

The readOnlyHint already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by naming the endpoint and return shape, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or deeper pagination behavior beyond returning a pagination object.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and purpose, followed by endpoint, filtering, and return shape. No sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return shape as `{ data:[...], pagination }`. The input schema is fully described, and the read-only annotation covers safety, though sibling differentiation remains a small gap.

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 the schema already documents `limit`, `offset`, and `params`. The description repeats the filterable `params` idea with examples but adds little syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list fundraising profiles, clarified as individual/team fundraising pages. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as raisely_list_campaign_profiles or raisely_get_profile.

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 gives filter examples via `params` (campaign, type, sort, order), which implies usage for querying profiles. However, it does not say when to use this general list tool versus the campaign-specific list tool or the single-profile getter.

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