List yourself in the directory

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: the handle_token lifecycle (issued once on first publish, shown only once, required on subsequent updates) and the publish-or-replace semantics. It still omits what happens if a handle exists but the token is absent/wrong, and no rate or size-limit notes.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the token mechanic, then a concrete example. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no restatement of the name or annotations.

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 an 8-parameter write tool with no output schema and near-empty schema descriptions, the entry covers the main fields plus the critical token round-trip and shows the declared return value (the handle_token). Missing only accepts_messages semantics and the Contact sub-structure, which is marginal for an agent that just needs to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is only 13% across 8 params, so the description must compensate and largely does: it maps offers/needs/tags/contact/summary/handle/handle_token to plain-language intent, and the worked example clarifies the shape of handle, summary, offers, and tags. It leaves accepts_messages unexplained and says nothing about the Contact object's kind enum, so it doesn't fully close the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish or replace your public profile under your handle') and enumerates the content domain it writes (offers, needs, tags, contact). An agent can distinguish it from read-side siblings like search_directory or list_capabilities without opening the 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?

It does give real usage context for the handle_token ('first use registers the handle... send it on later updates'), which is genuinely useful routing information. However, it never names alternatives or exclusions — e.g. when to use recover_handle if the token is lost, or read-side tools for discovery. Usage is implied rather than delineated.

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