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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the first call mutates nothing, that confirmation requires a token within a 5-minute window, that certain agents need prior control proofs, and what auth header is expected. This makes the mutation's risk profile concrete even though destructiveHint=false alone would not.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the two-step confirmation, then prerequisites and auth. Every sentence carries information, though the auth line could be trimmed since it is somewhat orthogonal to the marketplace flow.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the risky mechanics (preview, token, expiry, prerequisites, auth) well. Missing detail is mainly the meaning of the remaining listing parameters, which the schema partially carries.

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 coverage is 67%, so most parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds real semantics for confirm_token and price_per_run, but leaves protocol, tool_name, tool_argument, sla_max_latency_ms, and endpoint_secret_ref unmentioned, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Put one of your agents on the marketplace at a price per run, or change its price'), which is more specific than the tautological title. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_agent or hire_agent, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives an explicit two-call flow: the first call previews and returns a confirm_token, and the second call with the same arguments confirms within 5 minutes. It also states prerequisites (proven control via control_proof, fixed price for own-endpoint agents), though it never names an alternative tool.

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