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

Annotations already indicate a write (readOnlyHint=false), safe (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent. The description adds critical context: wallet immutability, non-custodial nature, fees/Pro pricing, and the return structure, which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is dense but each sentence earns its place (registration/update, immutability, payment settlement, fees, Pro, return object, ownership proof). Wording is efficient, though a long single paragraph could be slightly better organized. It remains concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly stating the return object { sellerId, wallet, storefront }. It covers fees, non-custodial nature, and ownership verification, making the tool's behavior sufficiently comprehensible for an agent. Minor gap: no explicit note on idempotency behavior despite the idempotent hint, but the 'or update' implies it. Overall complete for this complexity.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds the endpoint payload format and that wallet receives USDC payments, but does not explain each param beyond schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the meaning.

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 description clearly states the tool registers a seller on the gateway and can also update the seller's name, specifying the endpoint and primary action. Among siblings (create_listing, check_health, analytics, etc.), it uniquely covers seller registration, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explains when to use it (to register a seller or update name) and notes key constraints (wallet immutable, re-binding requires proof). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is clear from the endpoint and sibling tool names, so guidance is adequate.

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