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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the authority model — the agent's bound/proven wallet must match the market creator — which is the single most important pre-flight check. It also adds lifecycle semantics absent from annotations: TTL, coalescing, source metadata, and stale-update protection. It does not say what happens to previously published surface data on overwrite or what failures look like, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Content is front-loaded: purpose, then authority constraint, then kind routing, all in three tight sentences. The trailing 'Examples: Publish a bounded live price chart frame' restates the purpose without illustrating anything the preceding sentences did not already establish, making it the one sentence that does not earn its place.

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 13-parameter write tool with a nested observation object, the description supplies the two things the schema and annotations cannot: the authority precondition and the intended semantics of each kind. Return values are covered by the output schema and mutation safety by annotations, so the remaining gaps (TTL values, retry/replay behavior for the wallet proof) are narrower than they would be for an unannotated tool.

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?

At 54% schema coverage, the description contributes real meaning for kind by mapping each enum value to an intended content category (durable note vs bounded live state). For the remaining parameters — observation's provenance fields, proofNonce, walletSignature, signatureTimestamp, idempotencyKey — the description adds nothing beyond the schema's own descriptions, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Publish market surface data by intent') and immediately splits the resource into four concrete kinds, so an agent knows what is being written. It stops short of differentiating against adjacent write tools in the sibling list (push_content, post_canvas_update, publish_research), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which write path to prefer.

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 explicit selection guidance among the enum values: kind=note for durable creator content versus price_chart/scoreboard/ticker for bounded live state. It does not state when not to use the tool or name an alternative sibling for overlapping use cases, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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