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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the create effect, commission model, moderation, in_review status, no account required, and returns a preview_url. Missing details like idempotency or error handling prevent 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?

Four sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, creation behavior, commission/moderation, prerequisites, and return value. No fluff; information is front-loaded.

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 complex 13-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: state change, moderation, commercial terms, prerequisites, and return URL. It doesn't describe all parameter defaults or edge cases, but the essentials are present.

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 only 38%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only mentions 'price' and 'category' lightly. It doesn't explain the semantics of required fields (title, city, name) beyond the schema, nor optional fields like email/phone/image_url, leaving the agent to infer.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Add') and clearly identifies the resource (supplier/operator and experience). It states exactly what the tool accomplishes in one call, which distinguishes it from sibling read/list 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?

It explicitly tells the agent to call get_submission_schema and list_categories first, providing clear prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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