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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits that this is an authenticated write (wallet + nonce + signature) and that it overwrites an existing listing. It also says nothing about rate limits, reversibility, or what happens to fields not supplied. The 'Outputs only' fragment is ambiguous and adds no actionable behavior.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the verb leading, which is good. But the compression goes past efficient into cryptic in the clause 'Outputs only; no account sharing', which costs more in ambiguity than it saves in tokens.

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?

A 10-parameter, 7-required mutation with zero annotation coverage, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema needs the description to explain the signing flow and nonce acquisition. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call this correctly without external guesswork.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It names skills, price, and per hour/day (covering maybe four params), but leaves name, wallet, nonce, signature, currency (the only enum), and description unexplained — notably the two auth-critical fields nonce and signature, which will be the most error-prone to supply.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource (register/update your seller listing) and enumerates the kinds of values involved (skills, price per task, tasks per hour/day), so the agent knows this upserts a listing. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as hire_agent or list_agents, and the trailing phrase 'Outputs only; no account sharing' is too cryptic to sharpen the purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to register versus when to update, and no mention of prerequisites even though sibling tools get_nonce and list_agents clearly frame this flow. 'No account sharing' reads as a policy hint rather than a usage condition, leaving the agent to infer the trigger conditions entirely.

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