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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a solid job: it discloses public visibility, no approval, free listing, and the authentication requirement. It does not fully detail update semantics (e.g., overwrite behavior or service_name uniqueness), but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple mutation statement.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the core purpose and then add high-value behavioral details (free, no approval, public, auth). There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 rich 100%-covered schema handles parameter meaning, and the description adds essential operational context: purpose, public visibility, no approval, and required credentials. The main missing pieces are the response format and explicit update semantics, but for this complexity the definition is largely complete.

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?

All six parameters are already described in the input schema, so the description adds no new meaning beyond naming the key fields in the first sentence. This meets the baseline for a tool with full schema description coverage.

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 ('publish or update') and clearly identifies the resource ('one of your own services in the public catalogue') along with the relevant fields. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing ownership and public catalogue placement, making its role unambiguous.

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 gives useful context ('Sell your work', free, no approval, public) and mentions the required auth from marketplace_register, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of related siblings like marketplace_my_services or marketplace_services. The usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with alternatives.

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