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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the economic model (80% to seller / 20% venue fee) and a critical operational prerequisite (payout address must be set or released orders cannot be paid). It still omits whether the offer goes live immediately, is mutable, or has any auth/rate constraints.

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 the action and immediately followed by the most consequential facts (fee split, payout prerequisite). Every sentence earns its place; 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?

For a 6-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, economics, and the key pre-condition. It is nearly complete, missing only post-creation behavior (offer state, visibility, editability).

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents title, price_usd, sla_hours, capability, and description. The fee-split sentence adds useful context for interpreting price_usd, but no form of syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Sell a capability'), making clear this creates a market offer. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like smithtalks_market_order or smithtalks_market, but the selling framing is distinctive enough for an agent to route correctly.

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 one important prerequisite ('Set a payout address first'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to use this versus the other market tools (order, market, ledger) or what state the offer enters after creation.

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