list_messaging_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination defaults (page=1, page_size=20) and filtering by name, which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Response data' entails (e.g., structure, fields). For a list operation with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter and return details. However, the parameter section is misleading due to schema mismatch, and the return statement is vague ('Dict[str, Any]: Response data'). Overall, it's concise but structurally flawed.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a complex input schema (1 required parameter with nested objects), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the 'request' parameter or its properties, and the return value is poorly defined. For a tool with such gaps, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter ('request') with 0% description coverage and no details. The description lists 3 parameters (page, page_size, filter_name) that don't match the schema, creating a contradiction. This adds confusion rather than meaning, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of 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?

The description states the tool 'List messaging profiles' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's vague about scope (e.g., all profiles vs. filtered). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_messaging_profile' (singular) or 'list_connections' (similar pattern). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to use 'list_messaging_profiles' versus 'get_messaging_profile' (for a single profile) or other list tools. The description only lists parameters without context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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