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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that the listing includes data schemas and examples, which is useful content context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about rate limits, freshness, or whether the catalog is static.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the capability statement is front-loaded and the routing note follows. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

With an output schema defined, return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining burden on the description is light. It covers what is listed and where it fits in the publishing workflow; only a clearer tie-in to when this discovery step is needed is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level detail is omitted because no parameters exist.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "List the built-in market surface renderer types," plus the payload detail ("with data schemas and examples"). The resource 'renderer types' is distinct from the other problee_discover_* siblings, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It routes agents by skill level: beginners should call problee_publish_market_surface, while problee_push_content is the advanced raw envelope path. That is clear contextual routing, but it frames the downstream publishing choice rather than stating when to call this catalog tool (e.g., before publishing) or when to skip it.

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