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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the safety burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool only prepares an unsigned transaction payload rather than executing a state change, and it states the owner-signature requirement. It does not mention cancellation/overwrite behavior or output delivery details, but the core non-execution behavior is transparent.

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?

Two short sentences, with the main action front-loaded and only one essential prerequisite statement. There is no filler or repetition of schema contents.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it defines the action, the non-execution nature, and the owner prerequisite. It does not detail the exact shape of the returned unsigned payload or chain/fee context, but that is a minor gap for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 100%; domainName, priceInEth, durationDays, and sellerAddress all have meaningful descriptions including formats and a default. The tool description adds only high-level context (owned domain, owner signature) that mostly restates the schema comment on sellerAddress, so the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('prepare an unsigned transaction payload to list') and a specific resource ('owned .i domain'), plus the marketplace context. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like marketplace_buy_domain and marketplace_cancel_listing, so an agent can identify it by description 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?

Describes the listing task and a hard prerequisite (owner wallet signature), which gives clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or situations to avoid, but the action is unambiguous enough that an agent can route to it from a seller's 'list for sale' request.

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