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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description usefully clarifies that the operation merges facts rather than replacing the whole profile, resolving the ambiguity around what 'destructive' means here. It does not state permissions or what happens to conflicting existing facts, but it adds genuine context beyond the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the description runs long with a large trailing block of answer-formatting rules (citations, disclaimers, phrasing rules) that reads as agent policy rather than tool documentation. Those sentences crowd out tool-specific detail for a 8-parameter mutation.

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, zero-required mutation with no output schema, the description covers merge behavior, the invocation trigger, and post-call handling of results such as not_covered. Nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing, though field-level usage detail is left entirely to the schema.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented with types, enums and examples. The description only name-drops a few fields (role, categories, markets, own-brand) without adding format or semantic detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Saves or corrects company facts') and the merge semantics of the operation. However, the second half of the description shifts into output/answer policy (never rank vendors, don't call yourself a consultant), which blurs the tool's core purpose and never contrasts it with siblings like get_profile or delete_profile.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('when the user states a lasting fact about their company… or to save a learnable fact from a result'), which is clear context for invocation. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases against the sibling profile tools.

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