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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent write with no open-world side effects. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: registering is free and takes no payment, and personal data must be excluded — both material to an agent deciding whether to call it. It stops short of saying what happens after submission (who sees the demand, whether a match or contact follows).

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause earns its spot: what to record, the monetary semantics, and the privacy constraint. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 20-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the intent and two key constraints but omits the downstream lifecycle — what a registered demand is used for, whether it is published to suppliers, and whether the agent will be matched or contacted. That omission leaves the agent unable to explain consequences to its principal.

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 80%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning and the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the concept of max_price but adds no syntax or format guidance, and with 20 parameters several enum fields (urgency, currency, delivery, freshness, payment_rails, principal_type) remain undocumented in both description and schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('demand') and enumerates the kinds of things that can be registered (dataset, API, MCP tool, service), plus the key attribute (max price). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like browse_demand or endorse_demand, so an agent must infer the distinction from the names alone.

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?

'Free; no payment is taken' signals this is a non-transactional registration, which implies it is the entry point rather than a discovery or endorsement action, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. None of the sibling tools (browse_demand, endorse_demand, find_data_source) are named as alternatives or complements.

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