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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: an authorisation requirement (owner-authorised write API key), a legal attestation gate (attestRights=true), an ordering dependency (fetch category schema first), and a cost signal (publication is free). It omits idempotency, moderation/review latency, and failure behaviour, and does not reconcile "publish" with the schema's draft/withdrawn status values.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the authorisation gate, then the prerequisite, then the cost note. Every sentence adds a distinct operational fact and none repeats the 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 an 11-parameter, 6-required mutation with a nested open-ended attributes object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin: an agent still cannot tell how attributes must be shaped, when to set status to draft versus published, or what a successful response looks like. The auth and ordering guidance is genuinely useful, but it does not cover the complexity of the call.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only touches attestRights (already fixed to const true in the schema) and indirectly category via the schema-first instruction. The meaning and constraints of name, summary, description, website, country, languages, tags, and especially the free-form nested attributes object are left entirely undocumented.

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?

"Publish an offer on behalf of its owner" names a specific verb (publish) and resource (offer/listing), and the sibling set makes the publish-vs-update_listing split inferable. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with update_listing or get_listing, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 concrete preconditions: an owner-authorised write API key is required, attestRights must be true, and the category schema must be obtained first via get_category_schema. It does not say when NOT to use it (e.g. to edit an existing offer, use update_listing) or what happens on republish.

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