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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds the concrete guarantee 'It never publishes, executes or pays,' which clarifies the side-effect profile beyond the annotation booleans. It also names the domains checked, giving the agent a more concrete model of what validation means.

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?

Two short sentences with the main verb and resource first, followed by a compact list of checks and a crisp side-effect disclaimer. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 simple read-only validation tool the description covers the input and side effects, but it never states the return value or result format (e.g., boolean vs. structured report), and there is no output schema to fill that gap. The vague 'legally exchangeable' criterion is also left undefined, which may matter when evaluating an edge-case listing.

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?

The schema describes a single free-form 'listing' object with no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It compensates by enumerating the dimensions that matter (ownership, resale rights, authorization, availability, schedule, price, location, isolation, protocols), though it does not specify the expected input shape or field names.

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 ('Check') and resource ('capacity listing'), and enumerates what is validated (ownership/resale rights, provider authorization, availability, schedule, price, location, isolation, protocols). It is clearly distinguishable from a generic validate action, though it does not name the closest sibling validate_exchange_batch.

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 establishes that this is a pre-exchange validation step but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as validate_exchange_batch for batch validation or check_compatibility for compatibility. The 'never publishes...' clause hints at what it is not but is better treated as behavioral disclosure than usage routing.

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