List connected Threads profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the response will tell the agent (default profile, token expiry days) and positions the tool as a first step in multi-account scenarios. It does not mention the live-lookup behavior implied by the 'fast' parameter, but that is captured in the schema.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence lists what is returned; the second sentence gives a concise invocation directive. Every phrase adds value and the main output is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and robust annotations, the description covers the essential return categories and the primary usage scenario. There is no output schema, so a bit more explicit structure (e.g., that it returns an array/object) would be helpful, but the current text is sufficient for a competent agent to call it 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%: the only parameter, 'fast', is fully explained in the schema ('Skip the live profile lookups and return only what is configured locally'). The tool description adds no additional meaning for the parameter, so the baseline of 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 ('list') and resource ('connected Threads profiles'), and goes beyond a simple label by enumerating what is returned: the default profile and token expiry in days. This clearly separates it from siblings like whoami (single identity) and lookup_profile (search).

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 gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Call this first when more than one profile might be connected.' This is a clear context for when to use it, though it does not name alternative tools for the opposite case or explicitly state when not to use it.

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