List routing profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lists' conveys a read-only operation, and the 'optionally checking' phrase hints at an extra verification step, but it does not disclose that verify says it fetches from an external URL (as in the schema) or that it might be slow. No contradictions.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the optional behavior is appended without distracting from the main operation.

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 two-optional-parameter listing tool, the description covers scope and optional behavior. It does not describe the return format, but for a list operation this is likely inferable; overall, nothing critical is missing.

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%, with both 'verify' and 'category' having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Lists') and a clear resource ('BRouter routing profiles') with a scope qualifier ('known to this server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like plan_route and compare_profiles. The optional availability check adds clarity without ambiguity.

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 implies use when you need to discover server-known profiles, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to use it instead of get_profile_options. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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