bni_list_professions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that names are German-only and advises translation, a key behavioral trait. The verb 'Lists' implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate. It adds value beyond the schema by flagging the language limitation.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a crucial caveat. No wasted words; every clause earns its place.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and an important behavioral quirk (German-only names). It does not mention pagination or result limits, but these are minor for a list operation and not necessary for correct invocation.

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%, so both parameters are already well-documented. The description's mention of 'searchable and filterable' aligns with the parameters but adds no extra meaning about formats or defaults. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('official BNI worldwide profession catalog'), and notes it includes professions and categories. It also mentions search/filter capabilities, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle events, regions, or chapters.

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 usage for profession data, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like bni_list_regions or bni_list_chapters. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, though the resource name is self-explanatory.

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