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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read, but the description says nothing about result size, pagination, ordering, or what fields a carrier profile contains, leaving real gaps for an agent planning a call.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the resource definition front-loaded and the investigative purpose following. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and auth already documented, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. It stops short of describing the returned profile fields, which an agent would need to know for downstream reasoning.

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%, with rmd_id documented as 'FCC RMD filing identifier' and api_key explaining its fallback sources, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the semantic link between the ID and OCNs/brands but no format or matching-behavior detail 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List carrier profiles') plus the exact scoping key ('sharing an FCC Robocall Mitigation Database filing ID'), and the second sentence explains what the linkage means in practice. It does not explicitly name the sibling search_carrier_profiles_by_frn as the alternate lookup key, so the sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

'Use to connect multiple OCNs or brands to the same RMD filing/contact when investigating carrier identity, voice providers, or robocall-mitigation relationships' gives clear investigative contexts. There are no stated exclusions or pointers to alternative tools for other lookup keys, which keeps it below a 5.

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