List tool access profiles with entries and bindings

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the specific HTTP method and path (GET /api/companies/{companyId}/tools/profiles) and authorization class ('board'), which are helpful operational details beyond what annotations provide.

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 (two sentences), but the first sentence repeats the title. The second provides useful technical details. It is concise but could be restructured to avoid redundancy and include more context.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it does not elaborate on what 'tool access profiles with entries and bindings' entails or how the results are structured. The tool is simple but lacks explanatory depth.

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?

There is only one parameter (companyId), and the description does not explain its role or format. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. The parameter is straightforward but no guidance is offered.

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 tool access profiles with entries and bindings, and the title reinforces this. It is distinct from sibling tools like pc_get_companies_by_company_id_tools_policies or pc_get_companies_by_company_id_tools_trust_rules, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 such as pc_get_companies_by_company_id_tools_profiles_effective or other profile-related tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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