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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write; the description adds the async worker model, the `pending` → `indexed` status lifecycle, version-replacement semantics, and the account-status gating that silently stalls indexing. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Four sentences, none wasted, front-loaded with the action then the async lifecycle then the constraint. Dense and readable with no repetition of schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanations are not needed, and the description fully covers the async/status/account-gating complexity. The remaining gap is the undocumented optional parameters, which leaves an agent guessing about license, doc_type, metadata, and ticker_coverage at call time.

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 only 22% (2 of 9 params documented), so the description must carry the load. It does add real meaning for external_doc_id (the dedup/replacement key), but title, license, doc_type, metadata, source_url, and ticker_coverage remain undocumented in both description and schema.

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 ('Publish (or update) a document into the marketplace') and immediately expands scope to the async indexing pipeline. It is clearly separable from siblings like seller_list_my_documents and seller_register_endpoint.

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?

Explicitly covers the two usage modes (publish vs. update via re-publishing the same external_doc_id) and states a hard prerequisite (account must be status='active', pending_review queues indefinitely). It does not, however, name any alternative tool or contrast with other seller_* tools for edge cases.

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