List profile segments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining pagination, that the contact count is recalculated on read rather than stored, and that count_type controls whether counts include all matching contacts or only subscribed ones. This goes well beyond the annotation-only safety profile.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds the most important behavioral nuance. Every sentence earns its place without redundant detail.

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 paginated read-only listing tool, the description covers the resource, pagination, entry content, and the key semantic choice (count_type). With full schema parameter documentation and annotations covering safety, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that count_type chooses between 'every matching contact' and 'only the subscribed ones', which sharpens the enum semantics. Pagination is also mentioned in the first sentence, reinforcing page and per_page.

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 ('Get'), resource ('paginated list of the segments defined in a profile'), and scope ('in a profile'), which clearly distinguishes it from the general reach_listSegmentsV1 sibling. The title aligns with the description without being a tautology.

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 profile-scoped wording gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need segments belonging to a specific profile rather than global segments. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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