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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses the inline consent flow, notarization (SHA-256 + Ed25519), 6-year retention, zero-storage relay, per-query sales model, and the absence of exclusive buyouts. This goes beyond typical listing tools and provides substantial behavioral context.

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 long but information-dense; every sentence adds a meaningful constraint (eligibility, pricing, storage, consent details). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary specifics, with minimal fluff.

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 description covers eligibility, consent, pricing, storage, and sales constraints comprehensively for a listing creation tool. It does not mention the API response or post-listing behavior, but given the lack of output schema and the high schema detail, it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is high (82%), and the schema's consent description already details the required fields and state-specific authorizations. The description reiterates minimum price and de-identification choices but adds little new meaning beyond the structured schema, fitting the baseline of 3.

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 opens with 'List your OWN personal health data for sale' — a clear verb, resource, and scope. It enumerates the health data verticals (body scans, blood work, etc.), which distinguishes it from generic sell_data and other marketplace tools.

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 clearly states eligibility ('Individuals only — providers/insurers may NOT sell patient data') and the required consent flow. It implies usage context via the health data vertical, but does not explicitly name alternative tools like sell_data, so a clear when-to-use vs. alternatives is slightly lacking.

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