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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations: discloses company-wide blast radius ('for EVERY user of the company'), a hard rate limit (10 changes/day per company), a propagation timeline (score within ~1 hour, AI summaries several hours), and that 'only the given fields change'. It also states auth and plan requirements and that the tool returns before/after profiles.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does, then layers preconditions, side effects and limits; every sentence carries real information. It is dense and long-ish for one definition, but the length is justified by the number of non-obvious behaviors (delay, rate limit, company-wide scope) that an agent must know before calling.

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 destructive 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: prerequisites (OAuth, plan, user_confirmed), scope of effect, rate limits, post-change propagation, and return payload ('the profile before and after'). Nothing material is left to inference.

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% and each parameter already documents its replacement vs. additive semantics, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds only marginal orientation — pointing at cpv_search as the source for CPV codes and restating the user_confirmed meaning already present in the schema — so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Changes the signed-in company's MATCHING PROFILE') and enumerates the exact fields touched (CPV codes, voivodeships, budget, does/does-not). It also anchors the concept to a UI location ('Settings → Profil'), which removes ambiguity about which object is being mutated, and separates it from list_matched_tenders and search_tenders.

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?

Explicitly says the profile 'is set ONCE and then stays as it is' and that changes require 'a concrete reason the user gives', which steers the agent away from casual edits. It names the alternative for out-of-profile browsing ('Tenders outside the profile are found with search_tenders, without changing it') and states the user_confirmed=true precondition.

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