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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the data joins a pool readable by other workspaces, duplicates within 24 hours earn nothing, and sandbox keys get a 403 until the workspace is claimed. This is effectively why idempotentHint=false matters and reinforces destructiveHint=false (pool is append-only, not overwriting), though the return value of a successful call is unspecified.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and reward before constraints and prerequisites. The parameter listing sentence is the only one that borders on redundant given the schema.

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?

Covers the reward, public-data constraint, dedup window, required fields, and auth prerequisite — enough to call correctly with 8 params and no output schema. It does not describe what the response returns on success, which is a small remaining gap.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description restates the four required fields and gives one example vertical ('such as saas'), which is minor added value but largely overlaps the 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Share one observed price with the data exchange' — and the reward. The word 'one' implicitly separates it from the batch sibling, but it never names contribute_price_data_batch explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context (public prices only), a concrete exclusion rule (duplicate source+product+price within 24h is refused), and a prerequisite (claimed workspace required). It stops short of pointing to the batch tool as the alternative for multiple contributions.

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