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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds substantial beyond-schema behavior: the card goes live immediately, weights are renormalized server-side, an EVCDX index token auto-deploys, a one-time USDC fee is charged with the explicit error code CREATION_FEE_INSUFFICIENT_BALANCE, and the call is subject to a daily card limit plus content moderation. That is exactly the risk/limit context an agent needs before mutating state.

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?

Dense but every clause carries information – auth, workflow, defaults, fee, error, limits. Slightly weakened by leading with the api_key registration note before stating what the tool does, which delays the purpose statement.

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 non-idempotent, destructive, fee-charging mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers authentication, required inputs, defaults, server-side normalization, side effects (public listing, token deployment), cost and failure mode, and rate/moderation constraints. Nothing material to calling it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further: it restates the 3-12 ticker bound, explains that weights are optional, default to equal-weight, and are renormalized server-side, and that the card is attributed to the caller's linked account. It adds real semantics beyond the schema text rather than repeating it.

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+resource ('Launch a custom Event Card from an explicit asset list') and contrasts it with the sibling tool it is not (preview_card_basket, suggest_card_assets, headline_event_card implied by 'explicit asset list'). An agent can tell this apart from trade_event_card or headline_event_card without opening a schema.

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 an explicit prerequisite workflow – 'validate each with preview_card_basket first' – and frames the tool as the 'agent equivalent of the /events/builder page'. It never states when NOT to use it (e.g. vs. headline_event_card for headline-driven cards), so guidance is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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