list_customer_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists profiles and provides details like OS, platform, and email, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination, required permissions, or any limitations, which would be valuable context for an agent.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence states what it does, and the second clarifies the nature of the profiles and the data provided. No wasted words.

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 simple list tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the profiles are and the type of information returned. It could mention pagination or other context, but given the existence of the output schema, the missing details are not critical.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single parameter (customerId) with an example. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Lists Chrome browser profiles for the customer,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_org_units by focusing on browser profiles, and adds context about what these profiles are and what details they provide.

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 implied by the description ('Lists... profiles for the customer') but not explicitly stated with alternatives or exclusions. The tool's purpose is clear enough that an agent would infer when to use it, but there is no direct guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to other list tools.

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