list_circles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default exclusion of archived items, the paginated return shape, and a hard access requirement (Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY, and the explicit note that start_login does not grant access). That last point is genuinely useful routing information.

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 tight sentences front-load the purpose and the archived-filter behavior, followed by a separately labeled ACCESS block. Every line earns its place; 'Returns paginated results' is the only mildly generic sentence, preventing a full 5.

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 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description covers listing scope, default filtering, pagination, and authentication prerequisites. It stops just short of exhausting detail because it neither describes filter interactions nor explicitly confirms the shape of returned items.

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 every parameter (page, limit, status, profile_id, environment) is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of status="archived" restates the schema's own note ('archived excluded unless requested') and adds no new syntax or constraint detail. 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 Circles') and immediately scopes it with 'with optional filters'. This distinguishes it cleanly from the get_circle/create_circle/update_circle/delete_circle siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Gives a concrete usage condition: archived Circles are excluded by default and status="archived" surfaces them. However it does not name alternatives (e.g. get_circle for a single Circle) or state when this tool should NOT be used, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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