profiles_placements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the format of Google Business locations as full resource paths and specifying which platforms are supported, going beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main action and then lists platform-specific details. It is concise with no fluff, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, the description is fairly complete but lacks details on the general output format (e.g., array of objects) and potential pagination or limits. The per-platform examples are helpful.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, profile_id, which has a clear description in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter but places it in context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 'List available placements for a profile' and then enumerates specific placement types for each supported platform (Facebook, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Telegram, Google Business). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like profiles_list.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to list placements for a profile) and includes per-platform specifics. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the use case is well-defined and distinguishable from available siblings.

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