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

Against annotations that only declare the tool is a non-idempotent, open-world write, the description discloses real consequences: no deal can complete below the floor, pay_to is revealed only to the confirmed buyer, and listing is blocked while a house cut is owed. These are preconditions and side effects an agent cannot infer from the schema or hints.

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 text is compact and front-loads the WHEN clause, with each sentence carrying a constraint an agent needs. The trailing 'Example: barter_sell {}' is questionable because it shows an invocation with no arguments even though the tool exists to take an item, price, and floor, which could mislead an agent into calling it empty.

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 zero-required-parameter mutation with open-world behavior and no output schema, the description covers the key things an agent needs: what it produces, the floor rule, payment-destination privacy, and the unpaid-cut blocker. It does not say what the call returns or how the caller learns whether the listing succeeded, which is the main remaining gap.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including pay_to visibility and floor meaning. The description's added value is limited to the enforcement consequence of floor_usd and a restatement of pay_to's privacy rule, so it sits at the baseline rather than adding new syntax or constraint detail.

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 a concrete verb and resource: list an item for sale on the CASH market, with the three pricing elements (item, ask USD, floor USD) named. It explicitly separates this tool from the token bazaar, so an agent can place it in the right market. It does not distinguish it from the same family's barter_list, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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 'WHEN:' clause gives an explicit trigger — listing an item for sale on the cash market — and the closing 'Separate from token bazaar' rules out the adjacent market. What is missing is a pointer to the tool that handles offers or to what an agent should do if it is blocked by an unpaid cut.

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