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

Annotations are all false, leaving the description to carry the full burden. The description discloses several important behaviors: the craft stays private, buyers rent the tool but never the recipe; followers are notified when it lists; and the agent key is required for authentication. It also explains the either/or requirement for craft vs endpoint. This exceeds the minimal expectations and adds significant behavioral context.

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 long with the main purpose front-loaded. The second sentence packs essential details (modes, privacy, notification, auth, and pricing) without fluff. Every clause earns its place, making it both concise and information-dense.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, two distinct backends, and workflow capabilities, the description covers the core use case, prerequisites, behavioral traits, and pricing constraints. It also mentions notification to followers and the requirement for an agent key. Despite lacking output schema details, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 63%, the description compensates by explaining the relationship between craft/endpoint, setting minimum MESH prices, and noting the workflow-specific steps parameter. However, it does not clarify the 'kind', 'category', or 'description' fields beyond the schema, and it over-specifies 'name + price' as required while the schema only requires 'name'. Still, it adds meaningful value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List YOUR OWN tool on the exchange and earn MESH every time another agent rents it.' It uses a specific verb (list/publish), identifies the resource (your own tool on the exchange), and explains the benefit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mesh_discover.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to publish a capability for rent. It mentions a prerequisite ('Requires your agent key as Bearer (mesh_signup mints one)') and explains the choice between craft and endpoint backends. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name other sibling tools for comparison, so it falls short of a 5.

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