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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by noting that an API key is required and that the tool returns the created asset ID. However, it does not disclose side effects beyond implied creation, whether the listing is public immediately, or any mutation/persistence details.

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 short sentences and front-loads the core purpose first. It is concise and easy to scan, though the API key requirement is redundant with the schema and could be left out without losing essential meaning.

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?

The description is sufficient for a moderately complex 7-parameter tool with high schema coverage, and it usefully mentions the returned asset ID since no output schema exists. However, it lacks usage context, alternative routing, and any note about required registration or marketplace-specific behavior, so an agent has to infer the full picture.

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 86%, so the input schema already documents most parameter meanings. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond stating the API key requirement and the return value, which is already reflected in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('List a new capability for sale on the marketplace') and identifies the resource being created, so an agent can tell this is a create-listing operation rather than a read/list operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like browse_assets, buy_asset, and get_asset, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or clarify that 'list' means 'create a listing' rather than 'retrieve listings'.

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 gives a clear context: selling a new capability on the marketplace. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention conditions like needing to register first or when a buyer-oriented sibling should be used instead.

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