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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the cost (free), the return artifact (signed listing receipt, 201), the SELLER-ASSERTED labeling, the specific write-conflict behavior (409 DUPLICATE-ENDPOINT, refused at no charge), and per-key throttling (100/day, 1s minimum interval, 429). What it omits is what 'SELLER-ASSERTED' implies for trust and whether re-listing after removal is allowed.

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 front-loaded: the free cost and the core action come first, followed by outcome, error, and rate-limit facts in separate clauses. It is jargon-heavy (SELLER-ASSERTED, fenced, DUPLICATE-ENDPOINT) but each sentence carries distinct operational information.

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 9-parameter, 7-required mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the response artifact, error states, and rate limits well. It is still incomplete on the meaning and format of the four pricing/delivery fields, which an agent must populate correctly for the call to succeed.

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 only 33%, and the description adds essentially nothing about the four required price/delivery parameters (price_amount, price_asset, price_network, delivery_time_statement) — no units, format, or examples. It briefly reinforces per-key caps on seller_key, but that is already stated in the schema, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 action (register/enroll your own endpoint plus terms in the quote registry) and the artifact produced (a signed listing receipt). The verb 'list' is potentially confusing next to the sibling quote_registry_query, which sounds like the read counterpart, and the description never resolves that ambiguity explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied through the seller framing ('list your own endpoint + terms') and the refusal condition for duplicates, which tells an agent when the call will not succeed. However, nothing addresses when to choose this over quote_registry_query or quote_registry_criteria, and there is no stated prerequisite for obtaining a seller_key.

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