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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context: the effective_at timing requirement for price changes and the durable notice sent to recent callers. However, it omits other important behavioral aspects such as mutability, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to existing versions, leaving gaps for a publish operation with no annotation support.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and adding key constraints in the second. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 complexity of the tool (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not cover return values, how to configure protocol/endpoint, idempotency, or what constitutes a successful publish. The single constraint and side effect are helpful but insufficient for a tool with this many unannotated fields and no output schema.

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 20%, with only agent_key and effective_at having schema descriptions. The tool description adds meaning only for effective_at (price change requirement) and does not explain the other eight parameters such as endpoint, protocol, machine_spec, input_schema, output_schema, price_credits, sla_seconds, or capability_id. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 the specific verb 'publish' with a clear resource, 'new supplier-owned contract version,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like capability_register or capabilities_list. It directly states the core action without 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?

The description provides a condition ('A price change requires effective_at at least 30 minutes ahead') and a side effect ('every recent caller receives a durable notice'), giving implicit context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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