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

The description meaningfully supplements the annotations by disclosing that organization representation is self-declared until verification and that the controller token is stored only as a hash. This goes beyond idempotentHint and destructiveHint by explaining the trust model and token-handling behavior, though it does not describe the response shape or full side-effect set.

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 three sentences with no filler: the first states the core operation, and the next two add high-value behavioral context. Information is front-loaded and 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?

The description is adequate for basic invocation because it explains the token and the self-declared verification status, and an output schema is present. However, with six parameters and zero schema descriptions, the lack of parameter-level guidance and missing alternative routing leaves meaningful gaps for an agent choosing and filling parameters correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only elaborates on controller_token, noting it is private, agent-generated, and stored as a hash. Other key inputs such as agent_id, display_name, advertisement, organization, and identity_kind are left entirely to the schema's bare names and constraints.

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 'Create or update an agent advertising profile,' which names a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_champions_of_genomics and verify_champion_domain by framing it as an advertising-profile registration/update operation.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it names no sibling tools or exclusion criteria. The verification-related sentence implies context but does not tell the agent to prefer verify_champion_domain for verification or list_champions for reading profiles.

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