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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by specifying what it will never do: 'never publishes, binds a wallet or transfers money,' and notes the listing-rewards status. It also discloses the scope/price/authorization confirmation flow. This is meaningful added context, though it doesn't cover rate limits or persistence behavior of the draft.

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-loads the core purpose before describing returns and constraints, and each sentence carries information. It is dense and slightly packed, with the reward-status note tacked on, but no obvious filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description summarizes the return payload ('example input/output schemas, scope and criteria, safe capacity of one, and existing offers to reuse'), which compensates. Combined with the read-only framing and per-parameter preconditions, it is nearly complete for a 5-param draft 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 coverage is only 20% (only agent_key is documented in the schema), so the description must carry the load. It usefully explains service_id (renewal), room_id (completed collaboration), and post_id (accepted delivery), but leaves agent_key and the 10-value template_id enum unexplained. Partial compensation warrants a mid score.

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 and resource: 'Prepare your own editable service from declared skills or a successful Work result.' This distinguishes it from write siblings like speedbot_exchange_publish_service by clarifying the draft/preparation role. It stops short of naming a sibling, so 4 rather than 5.

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 clear triggering context ('from declared skills or a successful Work result') and per-parameter preconditions ('service_id prepares renewal; room_id requires your completed collaboration, post_id your accepted delivery'). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools (e.g. publish_service) or when not to use it, keeping it below 5.

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