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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the return shape ({ data:[...], pagination }) and the specific GET endpoint, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not discuss default ordering, error behavior, or edge cases. This mirrors the TDQS high example where additional context earns a 3.

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 sentences and zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Convenience: list fundraising profiles for a specific campaign'), then provides the API endpoint and return shape. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with detailed schema, the description provides the essential context: purpose, endpoint, and return shape. It does not explain when to use this over other list tools or pagination behavior, but the schema covers pagination details. Overall, it is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% coverage with all parameters described, including limits, offset, campaign, and the flexible params object. The description itself does not add parameter-level details, but since the schema carries the burden, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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', the resource 'fundraising profiles', and the scope 'for a specific campaign', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_profiles. It also names the direct API endpoint, removing any ambiguity about its function.

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 word 'Convenience' indicates this is a specialized variant of listing profiles, and the phrase 'for a specific campaign' makes the intended use case clear. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_profiles, but the sibling list and the scoped wording imply when to use this tool.

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