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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a signature is required, that a T2+ index record may be required via seller.index_ref, and that only one standing offer is allowed per seller+symbol. However, it does not describe mutation effects, duplicate handling, cancellation, permissions, or what a successful response looks like.

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 front-loaded, compact, and free of filler. Each sentence adds a distinct operational constraint: what is published, what is required, and the per-seller+symbol uniqueness rule.

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 7-parameter write tool with no annotations, no output schema, a nested seller object, and very low schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It covers key prerequisites but omits most parameter meanings and important behavioral details such as duplicate behavior and side effects.

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 14%, with 7 parameters including a nested seller object. The description clarifies signature requirements and the conditional seller.index_ref T2+ requirement, but it says nothing about symbol, price_usdc, max_per_day, auto_match, or p95_ms, leaving most parameter semantics to the sparse schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a standing ask on a standard instrument,' and adds the constraint 'One standing offer per seller+symbol.' It is understandable without opening the schema, but it does not explicitly distinguish this operation from nearby siblings such as submit_offer, publish_demand, or quote_instrument.

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 gives prerequisites but no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. With siblings like submit_offer and publish_demand present, an agent is left to infer when a standing ask is appropriate versus those other publishing tools.

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