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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers authentication (403 for unverified tokens), the fee being spent rather than refundable, and the strict typed body that refuses extra fields. It contrasts the fee with an oracle stake, which adds useful context. However, it does not describe the response format or idempotency behavior, which are relevant for a create/update operation.

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, starting with the core purpose, then the auth requirement, then the fee detail, and finally the body schema. Every sentence contributes value, and the format is front-loaded with the most critical information. No filler or repetition exists.

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 (many optional fields, auth, fee), the description covers the essentials: purpose, auth, fee, and body format. It does not mention the return value or error handling beyond the 403, and some field semantics (e.g., frontier) are left undefined. For a create/update tool, this is nearly complete but has minor gaps that an agent might 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?

The schema coverage is effectively 0% for most fields, so the description must compensate. It lists all parameters with optionality markers (?), clarifies price_joules_per_unit is int >=0, notes sla is a dict, and explains oracle_verified is an opt-in preference. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property names, though it does not explain fields like frontier or resource_type beyond their names.

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: 'Create/update a marketplace listing (POST /provide).' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like market_accept, market_listings, and market_match by naming the endpoint and operation. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 provides clear context for when to use it: requires marketplace:write and a verified account, and it specifies that first-time provider registration incurs a non-refundable fee. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions for choosing this tool over siblings like market_accept or market_request, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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