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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond that. It discloses side effects (drafts/private are first made live and public), requirements (JWT, persona, publish allowance), and downstream consequences (others can chat and pay for their own turns, uses/users appear on the card).

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the key prerequisite ('Requires a JWT') and then the action. Nearly every clause carries information, though the public-chat and card-visibility clause is slightly tangential to the act of publishing itself.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers prerequisites, the state transition it triggers, the visibility change, and what happens afterward. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'agent = the agent's id or handle' merely restates the schema, though 'one of YOUR agents' adds a useful ownership constraint.

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 states a specific verb-plus-resource action (listing one of YOUR agents on the market and in registry search) and scopes it clearly to agents you own. It even names the exact surface (rokha.ai/market, Agents aisle) and the resulting handle form, so an agent can distinguish it from generic publish siblings like registry_publish or rig_publish.

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 supplies real preconditions — a JWT, a required persona, and that it draws on your publish allowance — which is useful contextual routing. However it never states when to prefer this over sibling publish tools (registry_publish, rig_publish, wall_mcp_publish), so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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