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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does notable work: it discloses the commission model, that contact details stay hidden until buyer approval, and that a private token_kelola is returned. It omits auth requirements or handling of the returned token (e.g., whether it must be stored), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what gets listed, then cost, privacy, and return value. No sentence is filler and the most decision-relevant facts come first.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the business/behavioral essentials but leaves most input fields undefined. An agent would still be guessing at the format and meaning of half the parameters.

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 only 27% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate but largely does not. It only hints at the jenis enum via the four offering types and reinforces the kontak privacy rule; fields like harga, mata_uang, wilayah, industri, deskripsi, url and siapa_kamu are never mentioned.

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: listing a product/service/AI agent/dataset on the OCKLU brokerage. It clearly contrasts with search-oriented siblings like cari_penawaran and lihat_katalog by framing the tool as the act of putting an offering up for buyer matching.

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 commercial framing (free to list, 7% commission only on OCKLU-matched deals) implies when an agent would reach for it, but no alternative is named. There is no explicit 'use this instead of sampaikan_kebutuhan when you are selling rather than buying' guidance.

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