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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it requires an agency key specifically, and it discloses the shape of the returned record (name, date created).

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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded: the auth constraint and scope come first, followed by return fields and the raw endpoint. The endpoint path is slightly redundant with the schema's path parameters, but nothing is wasteful.

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, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and it notes the auth requirement. For a simple two-param read this is nearly sufficient; only the failure behavior for an unknown id is absent.

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 both account_id and profile_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what structured fields provide; 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: 'one profile by id', which distinguishes it from the sibling whatconverts_list_profiles by making the singular/plural scope explicit. The intended return fields (name, date created) are named. It stops short of a full verb+resource sentence but is unambiguous.

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?

'Agency key only' gives one precondition, so the agent knows this requires agency-level credentials. However, it never states when to prefer this over whatconverts_list_profiles or what happens if the id is unknown; usage is only implied by the singular scope.

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