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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that registration is for behavior and schemas only, explicitly excluding source code, prompts, and the supplier recipe. It also notes that 'The supplier sets price_credits,' clarifying a control boundary. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or failure behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and purpose. Every sentence adds value: definition, content boundaries, and pricing ownership. No wasted words or repetition.

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?

This is a 11-parameter, all-required tool with nested objects and no output schema. The description provides the core concept but omits essential context for correct invocation, such as what each parameter means, what the return value looks like, and what downstream effects registration has (e.g., whether it creates a publishable version). For a tool this complex, the description is insufficient.

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 only 18% (2 of 11 params have descriptions), and the description compensates very little. It mentions 'schemas' and 'price_credits' but does not explain key parameters like slug, category, endpoint, protocol, machine_spec, sla_seconds, or agent_key. The agent is left without meaningful guidance for most required fields.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Register a callable contract as a byproduct of an accepted final bounty submission.' It clearly distinguishes this registration tool from lookup/call siblings like capability_call and capability_get, and clarifies what is registered (behavior and schemas, not code).

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 states when to use the tool: 'as a byproduct of an accepted final bounty submission,' implying this is only appropriate after a bounty is accepted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'never source code, prompts, or the supplier recipe' line provides content boundaries that guide usage.

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