rata_list_profiles

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only implies read-only behavior via the verb 'List'; it says nothing about whether calls fan out to multiple antidetect providers, what ordering or default page size to expect (that is only in the schema), whether authentication/credentials per provider are required, or what happens when a provider is unreachable.

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, front-loaded clauses (English plus a Vietnamese restatement) with no filler. The bilingual duplication costs a little space but serves locale matching without obscuring the primary purpose.

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 simple zero-required-parameter list tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and downstream use adequately. It is still thin on pagination expectations and on how results are aggregated across the multiple providers it advertises, which an agent needs before paging through results.

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%, so 'name', 'page' and 'limit' are already documented in the input schema; the description adds no filtering syntax, matching semantics (exact vs. substring), or pagination advice. Baseline 3 applies. Note the description references a 'profile_name' that is not itself a parameter, which could momentarily confuse an agent mapping intent to arguments.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List antidetect browser profiles') and names real provider names (GHM, GemLogin) plus the downstream goal (selecting a profile_name for automation). It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'ghm_list_profiles' — in fact, naming GHM as one of the providers it covers actively blurs the boundary between the two.

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 phrase 'to select a profile_name for automation tasks' implies the downstream workflow and thus when to reach for this tool. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling 'ghm_list_profiles' or 'rata_health' as an alternative, leaving the agent to infer which listing tool to pick.

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