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

The description adds genuine behavioral context ('no funds or inventory are inferred', every record carries seven question dimensions), but it opens with 'Create a general market, listing...' while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true — the exact kind of write/read conflict an agent must not get wrong. The description also partially self-corrects ('prepares... in one call'), producing internal ambiguity rather than a flat, clean contradiction, which is why this is a 2 rather than a 1.

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?

Five short sentences with no wasted clauses, and the core 'prepares the complete simple agreement in one call' is near the front. But 'Selected action: quick_trade' is pure redundancy with the tool name, and the three-object opening sentence spends space without increasing precision.

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?

With 10 parameters, nested objects (payment_asset, terms, settlement, archetype) and no output schema, the description needs to carry much more: it says nothing about the return value, the meaning of the required hex identifiers, or what 'compact' changes. For a tool of this complexity, the definition leaves material gaps.

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 30%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not: seller, buyer, context (all 64-hex patterns), amount, compact and archetype are left unexplained. 'Every record carries seven question dimensions' and 'no funds or inventory are inferred' gesture at the model but give no field-level meaning.

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 opening sentence tries to cover three different objects at once ('a general market, listing or reusable transaction archetype'), which blurs what the tool actually produces; only the second sentence ('prepares the complete simple agreement in one call') pins the purpose down. Nothing distinguishes it from the sibling draft/inspect tools, and the closing 'Selected action: quick_trade' just restates the name.

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?

'Credit/escrow/custom terms require adopted execution' is a real usage constraint, hinting this tool is for simple agreements only. However, the agent is never told which sibling to use for the escrowed/complex case, nor what 'adopted execution' means operationally, so the routing guidance stays 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.