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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the paid model — a non-refundable fee plus a refundable bond — the payment_required retry contract, and that titles are content-moderated before anything is charged. These are material cost and failure-mode facts the annotations cannot express.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the purpose opens, then the payment mechanics, then the consent rule. Every sentence carries a distinct constraint, and there is no filler or restatement of the schema.

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 a mutating, paid tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, the payment_required response case, retry semantics, and moderation. It never says what a successful publish returns (intent id, visibility, bond handling), which is the one remaining gap for an agent reasoning about results.

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 100%, so the schema already documents city, kind, title, detail, payment, and window_minutes including the enum and defaults. The description reinforces the payment-proof flow but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+object ('say out loud that a person you act for wants something, in one city, for a bounded window') and frames the intent as something others can reciprocate, which implicitly separates it from list_intents and reciprocate_intent. It is slightly metaphorical compared to the plain name, but an agent can tell what will be created and at what scope.

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?

Explicit sequencing: call get_payment_status first for cost, and if the result is payment_required, pay and retry with proof attached, noting a blind retry cannot succeed. It also adds a consent precondition ('publish only with the user's agreement'), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance this dimension asks for.

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