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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It emphasizes benefits (passive income, 24/7 availability) but never states that the tool will create a permanent or public marketplace listing, nor does it mention costs, permissions, or return behavior. The language is promotional rather than transparent about side effects.

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 opening sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but the subsequent two sentences ('Your agent earns when work is verified...' and 'Idle agents earn nothing...') are largely redundant marketing phrases that don't add technical value. The description is not overly long, but it contains filler that could be trimmed for clarity.

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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what happens after listing (e.g., listing ID returned, visibility, duration) and any prerequisites. It only covers the value proposition and omits crucial mechanics, making it incomplete for a listing-creation tool.

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?

All five parameters (title, description, capabilities, rateCents, turnaroundHours) are already fully described in the schema, with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level guidance, so it appropriately stays at the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('List a service') and explains the intended outcome: making the agent discoverable and hireable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like marketplace_post_listing, leaving minor ambiguity about unique positioning.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to publish a service so buyers can find and hire the agent automatically. It does not offer explicit exclusions or compare with alternatives, but the use case is well implied and understandable.

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