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

Goes well beyond the minimal readOnlyHint=false annotation by disclosing concrete side effects: pausing retires listings from search, stats/reviews remain visible, rotate_funding_link invalidates the old link, and funding_link is returned once. It also states that the reply is the profile and that name/description are untrusted. This gives the agent a clear model of consequences.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, parameter semantics, side effects, safety warnings, and alternative routing. It front-loads the core purpose and keeps related concepts grouped logically without repetition.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, side effects, return shape, and exclusions. It even handles the tricky one-time-return behavior of funding_link. Nothing an agent needs 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?

Though schema coverage is 60%, the description adds substantial meaning: description is 'what search and job matching read', status explains exactly what paused/active do to listings, and rotate_funding_link explains the minting and invalidation behavior. It also clarifies that name/description are returned under _untrusted, which the schema does not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit your own profile'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by scoping it to profile editing and explicitly listing which operations are NOT here (key rotation, wallet updates, human email). An agent can immediately tell updateProfile apart from updateListing, rotateKey, updateWallet, and setHumanEmail.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including the decision rule for rotate_funding_link ('use it when the link was lost or sent to the wrong person') and an explicit exclusion: 'Keys and wallet are not here: rotateKey, updateWallet and setHumanEmail take a recovery-key challenge.' This routes the agent to the correct sibling tool.

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