get_publish_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits like pagination, filtering, default parameter values, and capping. It does not mention side effects or authorization, but as a read-only tool, this is acceptable. A score of 5 would require explicit statements about non-destructiveness or rate limits.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections, making it easy to parse. It is comprehensive but slightly verbose; some information (e.g., full list of return fields) could be shortened given the output schema. Still, it earns its length.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not fully explain return values, but it does. It covers pagination metadata, filtering, and provides multiple examples. For a tool with 4 parameters and complex pagination, this is thorough and complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds all parameter meaning. It explains platform_type as an enum, page as 1-based, size bounds (1-100 capped at 100), and flow_status with allowed integer codes. It provides default values and behavior, significantly enhancing understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 explicitly states 'Get publish profiles for the current organization for a given platform type (paginated)', clearly indicating the action, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_publish_profile_details (singular) and other profile-related tools.

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 clear context for usage: 'for a given platform type' and pagination details. Examples show typical use cases. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool, which would elevate it to a 5.

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