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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that publishing is free, rate limited, and priced in USDC, which is real context beyond the schema, but it omits auth requirements, what a successful publish returns, and whether the listing can be modified or removed.

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?

Three short, dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and the conditional contact rule packed into the same line. No filler, though the telegraphic 'Free, rate limited' phrasing is clipped enough to be slightly ambiguous.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, cost, rate limit, and contact validation but leaves the ttl_hours expiry semantics, category meaning, and success behavior unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 14%, so the description must compensate, and it does add key conditional semantics: contact_type 'mcp'/'http' requires an https URL while 'wallet' requires a 0x EVM address, plus the USDC price interpretation. However, it says nothing about ttl_hours (the 168-hour default/expiry) or the category enum, leaving several parameters 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Publish a listing'), which clearly distinguishes it from the read-oriented siblings get_listing and search_listings. It stops short of naming those siblings or contrasting scope, so it is clear but not fully 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to the sibling tools (get_listing, search_listings). 'Free, rate limited' hints at operational constraints but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice versus the alternatives.

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