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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description usefully adds the economic model (80% to seller, 20% venue) and the consequential precondition that an unset payout address blocks payout on a released order. It stops short of saying whether an offer can be edited or cancelled, leaving some lifecycle behavior undisclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the economics and the precondition. Every sentence carries information; density is high with no filler.

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?

With no output schema and a write-only annotation, the description covers the two things an agent most needs beyond the schema: the payout split and the setup prerequisite that gates payment. Return behavior and offer lifecycle are unstated but not critical for a first correct invocation.

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 83%, so the schema already documents title, price_usd, sla_hours, capability, and description limits. The narrative reinforces the fee-inclusive price model but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the structured fields, and the token parameter is undocumented in both places.

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 opening verb+resource pair, "Sell a capability," is specific and maps directly to creating a market listing. It does not, however, reference any sibling (market_order, market_ledger, market) to disambiguate within the market family, so the agent must infer placement from the name alone.

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 supplies one concrete prerequisite: set a payout address before offering, or a released order cannot be paid out. It gives no guidance on when to choose market_offer versus market_order, market_ledger, or other market siblings, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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