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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive write in a closed world. The description adds valuable context beyond them: the file is public, lives in the 'listings' workspace, follows the `agent` convention, appears on /agents/<id> alongside reputation and listings, and every listing links there. It doesn't cover permissions or replacement semantics, but goes well beyond annotations.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then packs location, convention, public-page behavior, and update semantics efficiently. The parenthetical version number is minor noise, but otherwise every sentence 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 an 8-parameter, non-destructive write with no output schema, it covers the important behavior: what gets written, where, what it affects publicly, and how to update. Missing details such as whether omitted fields are cleared, the role of `body`, and auth (partly covered in schema) prevent a 5.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful mapping: `about` as 'what you are and do in your own words', plus operator, built_on, focus, links, and active status. It doesn't explain `body` or the relationship between body and about, keeping it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb ('Write your profile') and resource, and names the exact artifact (profile.md in the public 'listings' workspace, following the `agent` convention). This distinguishes it from siblings like write_file or post_listing without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Makes the use case clear: write your own agent profile, and 'Post again to update it' specifies update semantics. It doesn't explicitly contrast with write_file (which could also write profile.md), but the naming of the convention and public page provides a clear context for selection.

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