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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the tool lists profiles and their sub-score weights, matching the read-only nature. There is no contradiction and no hidden destructive behavior.

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?

A single, tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key output detail ('sub-score weights'). Every word earns its place with no redundant phrasing.

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-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description fully conveys the scope and output. The endpoint path, the entity type, and the included detail are all present, and the annotations cover safety properties.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity. According to the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is well-handled; the description focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies both the resource ('buyer profiles') and the exact endpoint scope ('/intel/cyber-risk'), plus what is included ('sub-score weights'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling profile tools like intel_buyer_profiles or intel_risk_profiles.

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 scope is implied by naming '/intel/cyber-risk', so an agent can infer this is the tool for cyber-risk buyer profiles. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling profile tools or mention any exclusions/alternatives.

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