list_profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses filtering and pagination support, which are important behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies reading). The description adds value but leaves gaps in behavioral 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 two concise sentences that efficiently convey key information: purpose, capabilities, and requirement. It's front-loaded with the core function. While very efficient, it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 list tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and some behavioral traits but doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or detailed usage scenarios. The 'Requires Business plan' note adds important context, but more completeness would be beneficial.

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 the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description mentions 'Supports filtering and pagination' which aligns with parameters like 'title', 'hasActiveSocialAccounts', 'limit', and 'cursor', but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('user profiles with their linked social accounts'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_post' or 'list_auto_schedules', but the resource specificity (profiles vs posts/auto-schedules) provides implicit distinction.

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 includes 'Requires Business plan' as a prerequisite, which provides some usage context. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_post' or 'update_profile', nor does it provide exclusions or comparative guidance with sibling tools.

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