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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond, disclosing that the listing lands in a public pending queue labeled 'unverified, seller-submitted', that verification requires a public well-known text file, and that payouts are conditional and may never launch with the cut unset. This is exactly the side-effect and consequence context an agent needs before submitting.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (cost, queue state, verification flow, payout caveats). It is dense but not padded, though the payout caveats make it longer than strictly necessary for invocation.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be restated, and the description still mentions the returned verification code appropriately. The workflow, side effects, and monetization caveats are covered; the only meaningful gap is semantic meaning for undocumented required parameters.

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 57%, and the description only illuminates the endpoint parameter indirectly ('https://<your endpoint host>/.well-known/dirtsmith-verify.txt'). Required fields like does and price_published get no explanation in either place, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 plus the audience: 'Sellers: list your own agent-callable tool on the Dirtsmith rate sheet.' This cleanly distinguishes it from discovery siblings (find_tool, list_tools) and from the follow-up step verify_my_listing. An agent knows immediately this is the seller-side listing submission.

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?

Scopes usage to sellers and explicitly names the follow-up tool and its trigger: publish the returned code, then call verify_my_listing. It also removes cost friction ('Free, no login, no payment'), so an agent can decide to invoke without further inference.

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