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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that validation runs the same checks and per-client limit as POST /listings, that new listings rank after probed ones until a health probe passes, that later edits are wallet-signed, and that the operation is free with no account. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, or openWorldHint=true.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the validate-by-default behavior, then the submit path and side effects, so an agent can stop reading once it has what it needs. Dense but nearly every sentence carries distinct information; a small amount of return-field detail could be trimmed.

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 22 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting of explaining the default validation response and the create path. It leaves most of the 22 parameters to the schema, but since coverage there is complete, nothing an agent needs to call correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: submit's default-vs-create semantics and the same-checks/per-client-limit equivalence to POST /listings. It also explains the validation reply fields (errors with fixes, normalized_listing, missing_value, claim_instead), which is more than the parameters themselves.

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 and resource: listing a service on the Agent Discovery Board, plus the alternate mode of finding an existing listing to claim. The dual intent (validate vs. create) is clear, but no sibling tool is named, so the distinction from build_template or search_listings is left implicit.

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?

Explains the default posture (validate-only) and the exact switch that changes it (submit: true), and notes that claim_instead tells you when the endpoint is already listed. It gives clear context but doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this one.

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