list_profiles

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

Annotations already cover the read-only profile, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the security guarantee that passwords and connection strings are never returned, and 'you may use' signals that results are permission-filtered to the caller. It does not mention ordering or whether the list is cached, which would have earned a 5.

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 the capability front-loaded and the safety caveat trailing. Every clause earns its place; the enumerated fields are the only mild redundancy given an output schema exists.

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?

Output schema is present and the tool takes no parameters, so the description's job is limited to orienting the agent — which it does, including scope and the data-exclusion guarantee. Nothing needed to call 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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline 4 applies. Note the description instead spends its words on the return shape, which is technically the output schema's job rather than parameter semantics.

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 ('List') and a precisely scoped resource ('saved connection profiles'), then enumerates the returned attributes (name, engine, host, initial database, language). 'Connection profiles' is clearly distinct from sibling resources like list_databases, list_tables, and list_rules, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

Usage is implied — an agent reads this to discover which connections are available before querying — but the description never states when to prefer it over list_databases or other siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Adequate but leaves the selection decision to inference.

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