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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotentHint=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true. The description usefully adds the upsert semantics ('publish or update') and the operator-targeting behavior of kind, but says nothing about auth beyond the param, rate limits, or what a re-publish overwrites.

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?

A single dense, front-loaded sentence that puts the verb and resource first and layers field detail after. No filler, though the field enumeration makes it run long.

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 a 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main field groups but omits return/response behavior and the authentication model that the openWorld annotation implies. Adequate but not complete.

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 60%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the endpoint types and accepts_tasks already described in the schema and adds only the kind='operator' nuance, adding little meaning beyond structured fields.

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 ('Publish or update your directory profile/card') and enumerates the fields it manages, so the agent knows it is a profile upsert rather than a sibling like publish_skill or register_agent. It never names a sibling to differentiate against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'your directory profile/card' and the kind='operator' note clarifies one variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative (e.g. versus register_agent or search_agents). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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