Arsenkin: profile catalog

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the cost model ('free, no provider call'), which tells the agent this call has no billing or external side effects. It adds no return-format or freshness detail, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Three compact clauses, each earning its place: what it lists, when to call it, and the cost/resource pointer. Front-loaded with the resource before the routing and cost notes.

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 zero-param read-only catalog tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies everything an agent still needs: the entry-point role, the profile-selection guide, and confirmation of no provider cost. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4.

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 ('List') over a specific resource ('job profiles, payload fields and examples'), which is unambiguous against siblings like arsenkin_estimate, arsenkin_prepare and arsenkin_submit. The 'Use first to build a payload' framing further separates it from the tools that consume its output.

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?

Gives clear sequencing guidance ('Use first to build a payload') and routes profile selection to the arsenkin://guide/tools resource. It does not name a competing sibling or state when-not-to-use, but the entry-point context is explicit enough that an agent knows where this fits.

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