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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the financial aspect (earning revenue) but does not disclose any side effects, such as creating a permanent listing, potential fees, approval requirements, rollback options, or what happens on confirmation. For a marketplace publish action, more detail on side effects and prerequisites (beyond schema) is expected.

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 description is two concise sentences: first states the action (publish to marketplace), second clarifies the pricing and revenue model. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains zero fluff or redundant repetition.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not mention what the tool returns upon success, error scenarios, or steps like approval or validation. It also does not explicitly mention the requirement for ARA connections (though schema states it). The description explains the core action but not the full workflow or expectations, making it incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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 covers all parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'Set a price in DAC' which maps to price_dac, but it doesn't clarify auth_token or ara_connections further. The schema already explains these parameters adequately, so no compensation is needed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: publishing a user-built tool to a marketplace, setting a DAC price, and earning revenue from purchases. It uses a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('tool to the marketplace'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like purchase_tool or 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?

The description implies usage when the agent has built a tool to sell, by saying 'a tool you built'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context makes it obvious this is for registration, not purchasing or listing. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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