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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the prerequisite of a hosted identity and that withdraw removes the listing, but it does not clarify side effects, reversibility beyond the withdraw note, or what submitting actually does in terms of listing state. With annotations covering some safety hints, the description adds only limited behavioral context.

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 a single dense sentence with multiple clauses, which makes it hard to parse. It is front-loaded with the core action but packs several conditions and a prerequisite into one line, reducing 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 four parameters, 50% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides some context about prerequisites and the withdraw action. However, it omits details about the summary and category parameters and does not fully describe the submission process or expected outcomes, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 50%, with definitions for action and target but not for summary or category. The description mentions the target format (METHOD URL) and the action values implicitly, adding some meaning. However, it does not explain the summary or category parameters, leaving half the parameters undocumented in the description.

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 and resource: listing an x402 API (target METHOD URL) in Find's paid APIs, and notes the withdraw action removes it. It is specific about what is being listed and the dual action, though the phrasing is dense and the connection to siblings like find_offerings is not made explicit.

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 implies usage conditions ('its 402 challenge, read never paid, must pay a wallet you linked, or its domain be yours') and mentions the prerequisite of a hosted identity via create_identity. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives or clarify when withdraw versus submit should be chosen beyond naming the action.

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