get_profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions that the tool returns a cursor, which is a behavioral trait, and implies a read operation via 'download'. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works (e.g., need to use get_profiles_page with the cursor), or any limitations such as date range semantics or rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral details unstated.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the return type in the second. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters, three required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the pagination flow (what a cursor is, how to use it with get_profiles_page), valid event_name values, the meaning of the date range, or the structure of the returned data. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

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?

The schema covers 50% of parameters (to and from have format descriptions, batch_size has a default but no description, event_name has no description). The description adds meaning only for event_name by stating 'based on an event they performed', but it does not explain the date range (from/to) or batch_size. It does not compensate for the uncovered parameters, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding of all inputs.

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 clearly states the tool downloads a list of user profiles filtered by an event, and mentions the return of a cursor. This distinguishes it from singular profile retrieval (get_profile) and count tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_profiles_page. The 'returns a cursor' hint implies a paginated initial call, making the purpose reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_profiles_page or get_profile_count. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for selection. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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