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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the nonce's single-use/5-minute lifetime, the signing scheme, the one-listing-per-wallet constraint, the price unit conventions, and that output is returned without account sharing. It still omits what happens to existing fields on a re-register (overwrite vs merge) and any rate/permission limits.

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 purpose, then auth, then pricing, then an example — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It is dense to the point of being a run-on, but each clause carries information an agent needs.

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 10-parameter, 7-required mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies auth flow, pricing semantics, capacity fields and a concrete example. Gaps remain on update/overwrite semantics and the unexplained 'description' parameter, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most gaps: price is clarified as integer per task in lamports (SOL) or USDC base units (6 decimals), per_day/per_hour as task capacity, plus a worked example covering name, skills and currency. The undocumented 'description' property is never explained, keeping this out of the top band.

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 pair and resource ('Register/update your seller listing') plus a scope constraint ('one per wallet'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling unregister_agent. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the top band, but the seller-side framing is 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?

Provides concrete prerequisites and the exact procedure to satisfy them: call get_nonce {wallet}, sign the UTF-8 string, pass wallet/nonce/signature. It gives clear context for when this tool is callable, though it never states when to prefer this over, or combine it with, alternatives such as list_agents or hire_agent.

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