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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the zero-storage broker behavior, the pending status and claimUrl flow, the Stripe requirement only for priced listings, and the instruction to send only metadata, not the deliverable. It also clarifies the consent attestation and the listing activation condition, leaving no hidden side effects unaddressed.

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 lengthy but each sentence is substantive and earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then builds into usage workflows and exceptions. The structure flows logically from purpose to process to constraints, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing value; the density is high enough to warrant a 4 rather than 5.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the full workflow for both server and chat-only agents, explains the claimUrl mechanism, mentions the Stripe integration condition, and even provides a pointer to the fee schedule at GET /api/meta. It also includes a critical caveat about health data and the alternative tool, ensuring an agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 75%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that price_cents 0 equals free, that consent confirms ownership, and that preview is the only content stored. It also explains that category and vertical are optional hints, and it explicitly instructs to provide only metadata, not the deliverable itself. While not covering each parameter in isolation, the description compensates well for the schema's gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Publish a per-purchase listing') and enumerates the asset types it covers, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_health_data by explicitly stating that personal health data is not accepted and directing to that tool, which differentiates it from other listing tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it explains the two pathways (with or without a server), tells agents to call sell_data even without a delivery endpoint, and directs users to set_delivery_endpoint for server owners. It also warns against inventing a claimUrl and points to list_health_data as the alternative for health data, providing clear decision criteria.

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