Get Resource Planning Notification Profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. However, it fails to mention pagination behavior or that a list is returned, which is important given the input schema includes pagination params. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'returns a JSON object'.

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 about 4 sentences with some redundancy (e.g., 'Resource Planning' repeated). It is not overly long, but the unclear phrasing and repetition reduce conciseness. Could be more direct.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should clarify the return structure, especially pagination. It only says 'Returns a JSON object describing the requested Resource Planning records' without specifying that it's a list or how pagination works. This leaves important gaps for an agent to correctly handle the response.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description only reiterates the required company_id parameter, which is already in the schema. No additional semantic value is provided for the pagination parameters.

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 inconsistently states it returns 'all' profiles but later says 'fetch the full details of a specific Resource Planning records by its identifier', which is misleading. The input schema only includes company_id and pagination parameters, not a specific record identifier, so the tool likely returns a list. This contradiction harms clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It incorrectly suggests fetching a specific record, which may mislead the agent. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria are given.

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