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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no side-effect or state-change details but does include an experimental/no-financial-product disclaimer. 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 core description is one concise sentence, but the long all-caps disclaimer is boilerplate that overlaps with the schema field constraint and adds noise.

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 the complex nested object and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return behavior, success/failure semantics, or how the nested card fields should be populated, leaving important context 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 0%, and the description only loosely maps 'card' and 'domainOrigin'. The nested card object has many required fields with no parameter-level explanation, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 states a clear verb and resource: link a seller AgentCard and HTTPS domain proof. This distinguishes it from the sibling trading/payment tools, though 'before offering capacity' adds a slight sequencing ambiguity.

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 implies this is a prerequisite step ('before offering capacity'), giving some contextual guidance, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it relates to the alternative sibling tools.

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