List browser profiles (cursor pagination)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the key behavioral trait of cursor pagination and tells how to carry the cursor, which goes beyond annotations. It does not disclose the full response shape or pagination edge cases, but the added cursor behavior is valuable context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and the usage instruction is packed into the second sentence without redundancy.

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 there is no output schema and 9 parameters, the description provides the most critical context: when to use the tool and how to handle pagination via `cursor`. However, it does not mention how to use `prev_page_url`/`previous_page` for backward pagination, nor does it describe the response structure beyond `next_page_url`. It is adequate for the primary use case but leaves some edge cases unaddressed.

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 only 22% (cursor and previous_page have descriptions). The description clarifies that `cursor` comes from `next_page_url` and says to keep other parameters identical, which partially compensates for the cursor parameter. However, it does not explain the meaning of tags, limit, order, query, sortBy, folders, statuses, or previous_page beyond what the schema already provides, leaving the majority of parameters under-documented.

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 'Cursor-paginated profile listing', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It explicitly distinguishes itself from `list_profiles` by saying to prefer it over that sibling when walking a large workspace, so it is well differentiated.

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 explicit guidance: prefer this tool over `list_profiles` for large workspaces, and instructs exactly how to paginate (pass the `cursor` from `next_page_url`, keep other parameters identical). This is clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.

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