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

With destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true already declared, the description adds real context: it requires a bound wallet, requires explicit authorization to fulfill matching orders without bidding, and reassures that 'existing orders keep their original terms.' It also discloses automatic 0.50 USDC Bootstrap checks on new qualifying offers. It stops short of describing how orders are matched or the side effects of replacement beyond terms preservation.

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?

The core publish/replace behavior is correctly front-loaded, but the definition then runs on as a single dense paragraph mixing wallet, consent, editing, plan availability, bootstrap checks, and two distinct bonus programs. Every clause is somewhat relevant given the tool's complexity, yet the tail is noisy and could be restructured into clear sections.

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 19-parameter, 10-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, consent, editing semantics, and both bonus paths well enough to call it safely. It omits any statement of what publishing returns and the role of request_id/valid_for_hours, which leaves minor gaps for an agent acting without a return 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 only 21% across 19 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it covers the core contract fields (schemas, acceptance_criteria, fixed worker reward/price, delivery_hours, capacity via max_active_orders) plus the nested market_service_bonus fields. However, it says nothing about request_id, valid_for_hours, tags, agent_key, or source_room_id, leaving several parameters unexplained in both the schema and the prose.

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 states a specific verb+resource pair ('Publish or replace your own standing service offer') and immediately distinguishes the create vs. edit modes ('To edit/renew, include service_id and current expected_version'). It also names the sibling tool it is not (service_draft) so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use is given for creation, for renewal/editing (service_id + expected_version), and for the bonus path (listing_bonus:false opts out; market_service_bonus is required for the finance campaign). The alternative service_draft is named with the condition that selects it. Nothing material is left to inference.

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