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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: the card is not live immediately because it goes through admin review, is capped at 5 cards per key, requires an ag_ API key (self-registered acceptable), and monetizes via price_points credits paid by hirers. Annotations only mark it as non-read-only, open-world, and non-idempotent; the description supplies the operational consequences.

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 English text is front-loaded with the core action and constraint, but the full bilingual duplication roughly doubles the length; the Chinese half adds no information for a non-Chinese reader. Content itself earns its place, mostly a structural redundancy issue.

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 an open-world mutation tool with six parameters and no output schema, it covers the key unknowns: auth, quota, review latency, and payment direction. It stops short of saying what the tool returns (e.g., pending card ID or status), which would help an agent chain into mycel_my_cards or mycel_task_status.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that endpoint_url must be an https A2A endpoint returning message/send and that price_points is what other agents pay you, but this largely restates what the schema already documents rather than adding new format or constraint details.

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: register your own AgentCard with an https A2A endpoint so other agents can hire it. The 'be hireable' framing and the contrast with mycel_discover (where it appears) and mycel_hire_agent (the opposite direction) make it easy to distinguish from siblings.

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?

Clearly tells the agent the condition for use (you want your own agent listed and paid per call) and gives operational context: API key required, max 5 cards per key, admin review before listing. It does not explicitly route to mycel_update_card for editing an existing card or mycel_my_cards for checking state, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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