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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that values must be 'confirmed' and clarifies the unknown/not_registered distinction, which is real value. It never says whether an existing profile is replaced wholesale or merged, which matters for a destructive, idempotent setter.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the ownership/confirmation constraint front-loaded before the prerequisite and the enum caveat. Every clause carries information an agent 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?

The tool takes a nested profile object with required reviewed_on and notes plus up to 20 registrations, and it is marked destructive, yet the description says nothing about replacement semantics or what a valid reviewed_on means. With no output schema and only annotations for the safety profile, this is adequate but leaves real gaps for a write tool of this shape.

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 67% and the two top-level parameters carry their own descriptions, including the retry rule for request_id and when to omit business_id. The description names the profile fields in prose but adds nothing about registration_status values, reviewed_on, notes, or the 20-item cap on registrations. Baseline 3 given the schema already does most of the work.

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?

Uses a specific verb (record) with the resource fields it captures: country, region, registrations, effective dates. It also signals the boundary versus tax_guide by making that tool a prerequisite, so an agent can tell the two apart. It stops short of naming itself as the write counterpart to a read tool, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

'Read tax_guide first' gives an explicit ordering constraint, and 'unknown is not the same as not registered' gives a semantic rule that changes how the enum should be filled. There is no explicit when-not-to-call or stated alternative for correcting an existing profile, so it is clear context rather than complete routing guidance.

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