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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the mutation effect (create/update), the non-refundable fee, the typed-body strictness (extra fields refused), and the optional oracle_verified opt-in semantics. It also notes the idempotency_key, which hints at retry behavior. This is rich 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 efficient: it front-loads the action, then packs permission, fee, body shape, and caveats into a compact block. The parenthetical asides and inline field list are information-dense rather than padded. It loses one point for being somewhat long and requiring careful parsing, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (create/update, fee, permissions, optional fields, idempotency), the description covers the critical operational facts: auth requirements, cost, strict body typing, and the optional oracle opt-in. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. An agent has enough to call this correctly and avoid common mistakes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all body fields with inline type/constraint hints (e.g., price_joules_per_unit int >=0, sla dict, timeout_hours/timeout_minutes alternatives) and clarifies the oracle_verified field's meaning ('opt in to oracle checks'). It doesn't explain every field's purpose in depth, but it adds meaning well beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase 'Create/update a marketplace listing' and names the exact endpoint (POST /provide), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like market_accept, market_request, and market_quote. It also enumerates the resource types and fields involved, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly states the required permission (marketplace:write, verified account) and the failure mode for unverified/under-scoped tokens (backend's real 403). It also contrasts the 1,000-joule fee with an oracle stake, clarifying when this tool is appropriate versus oracle_register/oracle_deregister. This is strong when-to-use guidance.

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