List Profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List email marketing profiles', which implies a read operation but doesn't disclose return format, pagination, sorting, or any potential side effects. While listing is typically safe, the description doesn't confirm this or provide any additional behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It's front-loaded with the key verb and resource. However, it's extremely brief, which could be seen as under-specification, but for a simple list tool it's acceptable. Structure is straightforward.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), so the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks context about what a 'profile' is, whether results are paginated, and how this compares to other list tools. It's adequate but leaves the agent without enough context to fully understand the tool's role.

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 the description doesn't need to explain parameter details. The schema fully covers the parameter space (vacuous coverage). The description adds no param-related semantics, but nothing is missing. Baseline 4 is appropriate for 0 params.

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 clear action ('List') and a specific resource ('email marketing profiles'). It is distinguishable from siblings like reach_contacts_list and reach_segments_list, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. It could be more specific about what these profiles include, but the core purpose is obvious.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain the relationship to reach_profiles_dns_status or other profile-related tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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