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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that source code, prompts, and the supplier recipe are never registered, and that price_credits are set by the supplier. However, it omits side effects like idempotency, overwrite behavior for existing slugs, or authentication requirements, which are important for a registration tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, each adding distinct information: purpose and constraints. Front-loaded with the action verb and resource.

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?

The tool is complex (11 required params, nested objects, no output schema) and the description only provides high-level purpose, not enough detail about parameter semantics, expected response, or edge cases. An agent would struggle to assemble a valid request without external documentation.

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?

Only 2 of 11 parameters have schema descriptions (agent_key, source_submission_id), leaving 82% undocumented. The description adds context for price_credits (set by supplier) and implies schema-related fields, but it does not explain slug, category, machine_spec, sla_seconds, endpoint, or protocol, so an agent lacks enough meaning to correctly populate required fields. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 it registers a callable contract as a byproduct of an accepted final bounty submission, with a specific verb (register) and resource (contract). It further distinguishes itself by clarifying what is registered (behavior and schemas) and what is excluded (source code, prompts, recipe), differentiating from sibling tools like agent_register and capability_call.

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 phrase 'as a byproduct of an accepted final bounty submission' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, relying on the reader to infer that other capability-related tools have different purposes.

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