Retrieves accessible browser profiles with optional filters and sorting.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered without the description. The description adds that attributes are returned and that filtering is optional, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result limits, which are relevant for a list tool.

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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Slightly verbose framing ('This method retrieves...') costs it the top score but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description indicates that profile attributes are returned, and the schema fully documents all nine parameters including pagination and tag-operator semantics. For a filtered-list tool this is close to complete, though pagination defaults and page-size behavior go unmentioned in prose.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema, including enum values, defaults, and sorting string format. The description only names the filterable fields (ID, name, tags, sorting) and adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so 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 (retrieves a list of profiles with their attributes) and scopes it to a workspace and folder. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_profile (singular) or explain why an agent would pick this over that, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'It is possible to optionally filter results by ID, name, tags, and sorting' suggests a filtered-list use case. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as get_profile for a single record.

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