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

Annotations already signal that this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful context by stating it writes the same shared profile as the invoice server's business_set, which warns of cross-tool side effects. It does not explain partial-update vs full-replace behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and scope; the second adds the crucial shared-profile side effect. 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?

For a 17-parameter configuration tool, the description is fairly complete at the conceptual level: it identifies what is stored, where it appears, and that it is shared with another system. The schema covers parameter-level detail, and no output schema exists, so the description does not need to describe return values. A small gap is the lack of explicit overwrite/merge semantics, but the shared-profile note mitigates that.

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 the parameter details are already well documented. The description adds a useful high-level grouping ('currency, VAT, terms and prefix defaults') and the shared-profile relationship, but it does not need to repeat the schema's per-field explanations. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('Store') and a specific resource ('sender details printed on every proposal, contract and letter, plus currency, VAT, terms and prefix defaults'). It also differentiates the tool by noting it writes the same shared profile as the invoice server's business_set, which separates it from the document-generation sibling tools.

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 implies when to use the tool: before generating proposals, contracts, or letters, to set sender details and defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar tasks, so usage guidance is mostly implicit rather than direct.

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