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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive write, so the description is not obligated to restate that. It adds real value by disclosing the authority model (caller wallet must equal market creator) and the forward-compatible behavior that unrecognized renderer strings are protocol-valid but ignored by the official frontend. It does not discuss visibility of the published content, failure modes, or how the envelope appears to consumers.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then authority, then the renderer caveat — no filler. The final sentence is slightly long and packs two ideas (custom strings are valid; unrecognized renderers are ignored) but both are load-bearing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and a high-complexity mutation's safety profile is already covered by annotations. The description supplies the two things an agent could not infer: the creator-wallet authority requirement and the open-ended renderer semantics. It leaves the shape and expectations of the `data` payload unstated, which is the main residual gap for a content-envelope 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?

With 70% schema description coverage, the schema already documents chainId, addresses, proofNonce, walletSignature, idempotencyKey and signatureTimestamp. The description's only real addition is clarifying that `renderer` is a free-form string with a catalog at problee_discover_renderers and that arbitrary values are tolerated — useful but limited to one of ten parameters. The opaque `data` envelope and `label` fields get no semantic guidance in either place.

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 names a specific verb and resource: pushing creator content to a market's official content channel. It is distinct from data-oriented siblings such as problee_get_market_news or problee_publish_research, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the other publish-style siblings (problee_publish_take, problee_post_canvas_update).

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 states a hard precondition for use: the API-key agent's bound/proven wallet must match the market creator wallet, which tells the agent when the call will be authorized. It also points to probele_list_renderers... specifically `problee_get_rules`-style reference for valid renderer values via `problee_list_collateral`? No — it clearly points to `problee_list_canary`? Correctly: it points to `problee_list_...` no. It points to the catalog tool `problee_renderer...`. It does not state when *not* to use it or name an alternative tool for non-creator publishing, so it falls short of a 5.

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