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

Annotations declare a destructive, open-world write; the description adds real context beyond them: idempotent replace semantics ('a new address replaces the old one, the same address again changes nothing'), a host validation constraint, no cost, and the required 'act' scope. These are exactly the mutation details an agent needs and they are consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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 and the WHEN/WHAT COMES BACK labels make it scannable. It is dense but every clause carries information; the only mild cost is the slightly crowded single-paragraph delivery.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states what returns ('every profile on record, the new one marked'), and for a destructive, scope-gated mutation it discloses replacement semantics, validation rules, cost, and auth scope. Nothing an agent needs to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds genuine meaning: the per-site uniqueness rule and the requirement that the address sit on the site's own host, which constrain the url parameter beyond its schema text.

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 ('File one public profile or listing') and a precise resource, plus the downstream effect ('counts it as a verified presence'). The resource named (a directory-site profile) is clearly distinct from sibling record_* tools that handle claims, content, insights, and voice rules.

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 an explicit WHEN condition ('you opened the page and it is theirs') along with operating rules (one address per site, replacement behavior). It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it sits below a full routing statement.

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