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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds the real behavioral substance: an email sign-in link is sent to the work address on the company domain, confirmation happens on maxeds.org, the change 'shows immediately, marked as updated by the company', and rank-affecting fields are routed to review. That is meaningful context well beyond the annotation 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the actor and the action, then the auth/confirmation flow and the review exception. Dense but each clause carries information; the field list is long but scopes the tool's blast radius.

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 still explains the outcome an agent should expect (immediate visibility, 'updated by the company' attribution) and the auth prerequisite. Nothing needed to invoke this mutation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the mutable field set in human-readable terms (which loosely maps to the enum), but adds nothing about source_url or the work_email verification mechanics beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('change a fact on your own company's listing') with an explicit enumeration of the mutable fields. It also draws the boundary against the sibling report_correction, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

States the audience ('for founders and company staff'), the ownership precondition ('your own company's listing'), and an explicit exclusion with the alternative: rank-affecting deals/customers/results 'go through review (use report_correction)'. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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