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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses key traits: only approved results become public, unapproved results stay private, and re-publishing points to a newer card. It could go further on side effects or reversibility, but the distinction between approval and publication is meaningfully detailed.

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 front-loaded with the main action and is concise overall. Each sentence adds useful information: prerequisite, linking behavior, approval distinction, and re-publishing. It is slightly dense and conceptual, but not wasteful.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the essential context: eligibility, prerequisite workflow, privacy behavior, and update behavior. It does not explain what a successful publish returns or how approval is obtained, but those are not required for selecting and invoking the tool 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?

The sole parameter card_id is described in the schema as 'your pair's own visible content card,' and the description adds important meaning: it must come from a prior store action, should be in the pair's voice, and free_story fits that use case. This goes beyond the bare schema definition though it does not exhaustively explain card_id 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 states a specific verb and resource: publish your pair's profile, and clarifies it applies to registered pairs. It also explains the mechanism (links a card to the latest approved result per source), which differentiates it from related profile tools like pairgora_profile_respond or pairgora_store.

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 a clear prerequisite: first store a card, then pass that card_id. It also explains when re-publishing is appropriate and clarifies that unapproved results should not be published. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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