list_search_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It correctly implies a read-only operation (listing) and explains the entity's purpose. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether the tool returns all results or only active profiles (the bullet says 'all active' but the description doesn't clarify filtering). This is a moderate gap.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with a clear one-line summary, explains the concept briefly, lists key use cases in bullet points, and ends with a specific example filter. Every sentence adds value, with no superfluous content.

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 3 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description should cover output and pagination details. It mentions 'list all active' but doesn't explain pagination limits or default behavior. It also omits what fields are returned. This is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, providing baseline parameter explanations. The description adds contextual value for the 'client' parameter ('See what a specific contact is looking for') but does not enhance 'page' or 'per_page' beyond what the schema already provides. Overall, it meets the baseline without exceeding expectations.

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 'List search profiles' with a specific verb and resource. It explains what a search profile is and provides concrete use cases, such as filtering by client. The sibling tools list includes create/delete/update functions for search profiles, so this tool is clearly the list variant, making it distinct.

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 offers explicit usage scenarios: see what a contact is looking for, list all active profiles, review criteria before matching. It advises filtering by contact ID. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools (e.g., search functions) or mention when not to use this tool, so it misses some comparative guidance.

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