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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose substantive preconditions: signature verification (EOA or ERC-1271), ownership, conduit approval, and WETH balance/allowance are all checked before storage. That is genuinely useful behavioral context. It still omits what happens on verification failure (revert vs. structured error), which chain/network, and any gas/side-effect notes for a mutation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the verification conditions that gate it. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the name or schema.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers preconditions well but leaves out the success side (does it return an order hash/signature receipt?) and failure behavior. An agent knows the guardrails but not the outcome contract.

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?

Coverage is 50%: 'order' is explained in-schema as OrderComponents from list_punk/make_offer, while 'signature' is bare. The description partially compensates by stating the signature may be EOA or ERC-1271, which tells the agent what signature forms are acceptable. It adds no format/handling detail for the nested order object at submit time.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Publish a signed listing or offer' tells the agent exactly what is created and that it is a signed artifact. It implicitly separates itself from the order-construction siblings (list_punk, make_offer) which produce the unsigned order, but it never names them, so differentiation comes from the schema rather than the description.

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?

Usage is only implied: the schema note 'from list_punk / make_offer' establishes the workflow, but the description itself never says 'call this after list_punk/make_offer produces an order' or when to prefer accept vs submit_order. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are stated in the prose.

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