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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world), so the description only needs to add lifecycle and side-effect context. It does contribute usefully by signaling that the saved profile is "unapproved" and "versioned," implying a draft state and a separate approval step. It omits what happens on repeated calls, whether an existing profile is replaced, and what the response contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and no repetition of the tool name. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for the parameter or workflow context this tool needs.

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?

Five parameters with nested free-form objects, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions make this a complex tool, yet the description is one sentence. An agent could not determine how to construct mapping/contract entries or what parent_id means from this definition alone.

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 0% across five parameters, four of them required, including two opaque nested objects (mapping, contract) and an unexplained parent_id. The description only gestures at mapping and contract-adjacent concepts; upload_id, target_schema, and parent_id get no meaning at all, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Save") with a specific resource and states the resulting state: an "unapproved versioned profile." It also names the payload contents (mapping, decimal locale, quality rules), which distinguishes it from read/approve/delete siblings. It falls short of 5 only because "profile" is never qualified as a supplier feed profile and the versioning behavior is not disambiguated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says this must follow upload_supplier_feed, that approval is a separate later step via approve_supplier_feed_profile, or when to supply parent_id instead of creating a fresh profile. The lifecycle hint in "unapproved" is the only implied guidance, so usage must be inferred.

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