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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces them with concrete effects: the whole profile is replaced, derived_offering is cleared when the website changes but kept when unchanged, and derivation_status stays pending until background crawling completes. It also discloses truncation instead of rejection and that no credits are consumed — exactly the mutation consequences an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 most decision-relevant fact (full replace, no credit cost) is front-loaded, followed by the required-input rule and then the side effects. A few clauses (the /profile bot parity justification) are explanatory rather than essential but earn their place by justifying the truncation cap.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the important invariants: replace semantics, clearing of derived_offering, pending derivation, and truncation. It does not describe what the call itself returns, but with no output schema that is a minor gap against otherwise thorough effect disclosure.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the website is crawled into a shared knowledge base in the background, and the description is truncated at the same 1500-character cap as the bot command rather than refused. This tells the agent the downstream consequence of each field, which the schema does not.

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 opening states a specific verb and resource ("Replaces the whole profile with the body") and, critically, clarifies that it is a full replace rather than a partial update, which distinguishes it from get_seller_profile. Sibling tools are not named explicitly, but delete/get counterparts are clearly different operations.

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 gives a hard invocation constraint ("Send at least one of description or website") and notes zero credit cost, which helps the agent decide it is cheap to call. It never states when to prefer this over delete_seller_profile or when not to call it, and the only comparison offered is to a non-tool surface (the /profile bot command).

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