get_store_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 explains pagination, parameters, and return format, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, safe, or any authentication/rate limit details. For a list tool, the safety is implicit but not explicit.

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 clear sections for purpose, arguments, return format, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has 2 parameters, a paginated list response, and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It explains the return envelope and gives examples. However, it does not mention if the list is ordered or any implicit limits on page number.

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%, but the description fully explains both parameters (page and size) including defaults, constraints (size capped at 100), and usage examples. This adds significant value beyond the empty 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 clearly states it gets enterprise app store profiles for the current organization, paginated, and returns IDs, names, and configuration details. It also notes it does not support search filtering, which helps distinguish it from potential sibling tools that might offer search.

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 explicitly says 'This tool does not support search filtering,' which tells the agent when not to use it. However, it does not name an alternative tool for filtered searches, leaving some ambiguity.

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