profiles_get_collection

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It says nothing about pagination, auth scopes, rate limits, whether results are limited by team/account, or what the collection returns. "GET" weakly implies a safe read, but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the single line duplicates the tool name/route and carries no payload beyond what the name already encodes. Every word is redundant with structured metadata.

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 13-parameter collection endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain that it lists profiles and how the many filter/include/fields parameters shape the response. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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% across all 13 parameters (sort, limit, include, filter_*, fields_*), so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds zero parameter meaning, but per the high-coverage baseline a 3 is the ceiling-appropriate score.

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 is just the HTTP route "GET /v1/profiles (GET /v1/profiles)", which tautologically restates the tool name rather than describing what the tool does in human terms. An agent can infer it lists provisioning profiles, but there is no verb+resource phrasing that distinguishes it from siblings like profiles_get_instance or profiles_create_instance.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over profiles_get_instance, and no prerequisites or context. The endpoint string conveys nothing about selection between alternatives.

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