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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the operation is currently non-functional, requires a signed envelope, and demands domain proof via either a DNS TXT record or a well-known HTTPS file. It does not describe failure modes beyond the global pause or what the returned error looks like, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences with the most decision-relevant fact (the tool currently errors) front-loaded. The domain-proof sentence is necessarily dense but earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 nested-payload, signature-required write with no output schema, the description covers the signing requirement and the two domain-verification routes, which are the hard prerequisites. It stops short of describing what a valid payload must contain, which an agent would still need to infer.

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 100%, so payload, signature, and public_key are already documented in the schema; that sets the baseline at 3. The description does add meaning for the nested optional field by explaining that payload.change_note records what was corrected, and ties public_key to the domain-proof value, but the payload's actual business-profile fields remain unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Publish a new version of a business profile as a signed envelope," which tells an agent this is a signed write of a profile document. It does not name a sibling (e.g., register_agent, verify_agent_domain) to distinguish itself from neighboring write operations, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 lead sentence effectively states when-not to use it: "Currently returns an error (business publishing is paused...)" is an explicit stop signal. However, it offers no alternative path for an agent that actually wants to publish or update a profile, and no prerequisites about obtaining credentials first.

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