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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two behavioral traits: the 30-minute ahead requirement for price changes and the durable notice sent to recent callers. However, it does not explain what happens to the existing version, authorization requirements, or whether the operation is reversible, leaving notable gaps.

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 two sentences long, with the purpose front-loaded and no redundant content. Every sentence adds useful information without wasting space.

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 (10 parameters, 9 required, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It omits details about required fields, the publish process, versioning behavior, and post-publish effects, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the operation.

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 only 20%, and the description itself only clarifies effective_at's role. It does not explain critical parameters like machine_spec, input_schema, output_schema, price_credits, sla_seconds, endpoint, protocol, or capability_id, failing to compensate for 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 the action: 'Publish a new supplier-owned contract version,' with a specific verb and resource. It adds context about price changes, which differentiates it from sibling tools like capability_register (registering a new capability) and capability_get (retrieving).

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?

It provides implicit usage context by describing the publish operation and a constraint (price change requires 30-min advance effective_at), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like capability_register or mention when not to use this tool. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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