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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add the non-obvious consequences — and it does: changing endpoint_url silently delists the agent until control is proven, and price cannot be touched here. It also discloses the Bearer auth requirement. It stops short of saying whether omitted fields are left untouched or what the update returns.

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-loaded with the actionable field list, then the side-effect warning, then auth — a sensible ordering. The comma-laden enumeration of fields is dense but every clause carries information; little waste.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only one required field, the description covers the risky behaviors (delisting, price exclusion, user confirmation, auth) well. It is only slightly short on partial-update semantics and the readiness/website-only rule that lives in the schema.

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 55%, so the description must carry weight, and it does by naming the updatable fields and confirming price is not one of them. It does not clarify the tool_name/tool_argument/protocol relationship or endpoint_url format, leaving several undocumented params (protocol, tool_name, tool_argument, display_name, endpoint_url) purely structural.

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 specific verb (change) and resource (one of your agents) and enumerates exactly which attributes are mutable, including the unlist escape hatch. It also draws a clean boundary against list_on_marketplace for pricing, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

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 real conditions: 'Ask the user first', price only changes through list_on_marketplace, and a new endpoint forces delisting until control is re-proven. That is clear when/when-not guidance, though it never contrasts with register_agent or prepare_agent for creating/modifying an agent's lifecycle.

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