List review profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: it discloses the discovery/routing semantics (hosted profiles go through run_review, core ones also via prepare_review) and the auth constraint ('No account needed').

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger before the payload inventory and the routing rule. Dense but every clause carries information; the middle sentence's list is long but justified as the return inventory.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be specified, yet the description still summarizes them helpfully. With zero parameters, annotations covering the safety profile, and downstream routing explained, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns every review profile') and enumerates the exact payload (checks, file needs, hosted flag, gauntlet stage order, verdicts per mode, provider/model ids). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming run_review and prepare_review and the profile type each consumes.

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?

'Call first when you do not know which review fits' is an explicit trigger condition, and the hosted-vs-core sentence routes the agent to the correct downstream tool (run_review vs prepare_review). Both when-to-use and the alternative-selection logic are stated, not inferred.

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