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

With only non-informative annotations (all hints false/negative), the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that Stripe onboarding is required and the tool refuses with stripe_onboarding_incomplete, that all *_pence values are minor units, that haggling only applies to quote-mode listings, and that fixed-unit parameters must be set together — substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

The description is dense but well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then clarifies pricing modes, the DSL, haggling semantics, currency units, and the onboarding requirement. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 18-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the key conceptual model, mode-specific behaviors, and an important error case. It does not describe the return payload, but the schema and defaults handle most parameter-level details, leaving only minor gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics: how pricing_mode='fixed' versus 'quote' changes buyer behavior, the relationship between fixed_price_pence and fixed_unit_* fields, the role of scope_schema as a buyer-facing constraint DSL, and the haggling_enabled interplay with services_counter_quote. This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 clearly states the action: 'Seller-side: publish a service listing', with a concrete list of service categories. However, a sibling tool 'seller_create_listing' exists with a very similar purpose, and the description does not explicitly differentiate the two, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the context: seller-side creation of a service listing, with pricing modes and a reference to services_counter_quote for haggling. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like seller_create_listing or non-service listing flows, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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