list_browser_profiles

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool does not return the fingerprint payload or credentials, which is non-obvious behavioral context. It also reinforces the read-only nature of the call.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The output fields are front-loaded, followed by the use case, then the key limitations. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description names the returned fields and explicitly states exclusions (no fingerprint payload, no credentials). For a zero-parameter, read-only list operation with rich annotations and clear sibling context, nothing essential 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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The description focuses on output content instead, which is appropriate for a no-input listing operation.

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 ('List') and a precise resource ('saved browser fingerprint profiles on this account'), and enumerates the returned fields (id, OS, browser, version, creation date). This clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_configs, list_schemas, and list_proxy_products.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use to find a profile id before launching a browser session.' It also states what the tool does not return, which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for scenarios where the fingerprint payload or credentials are needed.

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