list_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a hint about result content ("with what each one covers"), but says nothing about ordering, caching, or whether the profile set is fixed — left to the output schema, which exists.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The core action leads, and the qualifying clause about score_tenders follows immediately, so nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and readOnly annotations, the description covers what it does and why it matters in the score_tenders workflow. The only mild gap is that it does not say what a "profile" contains or whether invoking it has side effects on profiling state.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey; the empty schema is self-explanatory. No misdirection about inputs, hence the baseline 4 rather than a 5, which would require the description to add something about input handling.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List the bid profiles") and immediately ties the resource to the sibling tool that consumes it ("that score_tenders can use"), so an agent can tell it apart from search_tenders and score_tenders without opening any schema.

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?

It gives clear usage context: call this to discover the valid profile inputs before/instead of guessing at score_tenders. It stops short of explicit exclusions or step ordering (e.g., "call this first if you don't know a profile id"), so it is strong context rather than a full when/when-not rule set.

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