list_cm360_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and mutability profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the downstream purpose of the returned profileId, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about pagination, auth/scope requirements, or what 'accessible' means in practice.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loading what the tool returns before explaining why the caller should care. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is any explanation of the lone `account` filter, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description — a real gap for an otherwise simple one-parameter tool.

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 is one parameter (`account`) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — an agent cannot tell whether it takes an account ID, a name, or a numeric key, or what happens when it is omitted (default null). This is the definition's most concrete gap, since the schema does not compensate either.

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 ('Discover accessible CM360 user profiles'), which is unambiguous and distinct from the many list_* siblings covering advertisers, campaigns, and reports. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, but the resource noun alone is enough to separate it.

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?

'Choose profileId for subsequent CM360 tools' implies this is a prerequisite discovery step, which is useful routing context. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. if a profileId is already known), and no indication of how the optional `account` argument changes the scope of discovery.

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