get_profiles_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'fetches' data, implying a read operation, but provides no details about edge cases (e.g., invalid cursor, end-of-list behavior), rate limits, or side effects. The description is minimal and offers no additional behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 a single, efficiently structured sentence. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Fetch the next page of profiles') and immediately clarifies the cursor source, with no redundant words or filler. Every word adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context (what it does and where the cursor comes from). However, it omits any description of the return payload (e.g., a list of profiles and a new cursor for subsequent pages), which would be valuable given the lack of an output schema. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 alone defines cursor as a string with no additional semantics. The description adds the crucial context that the cursor originates from get_profiles, which clarifies it is an opaque token from a prior call rather than a user-supplied identifier. However, it does not specify the format, validation, or behavior with an expired/invalid cursor, so its contribution is limited.

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 verb 'fetch', the resource 'profiles', and the pagination mechanism ('next page' via a cursor). It explicitly references the source of the cursor (get_profiles), distinguishing it from the initial fetch and other profile-related tools. This is specific and 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?

The description implies the usage context: it must be called with a cursor obtained from get_profiles, indicating a sequential workflow. It clearly states the dependency on a prior tool call. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like get_events_page, so it falls short of full exclusion criteria.

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