feegow_list_professionals

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states it lists professionals. It does not disclose behavior such as pagination, ordering, or whether it returns all professionals. The HTTP method is noted, but that is minimal.

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 very short and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure such as mention of output format or examples.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is underspecified. It does not clarify result format, pagination, or how to use the query parameter effectively, especially given the many sibling tools.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'query' with coverage 100%. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already covers the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool lists registered professionals (verb+resource). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling feegow_search_professional, which likely handles filtering.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like feegow_search_professional. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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