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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions prerequisites ('Requires input/output JSON Schemas and pricing') but does not explain what happens upon registration (e.g., whether the service becomes publicly visible, returns an ID, or has potential conflicts). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key requirements without redundancy.

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?

Given the full input schema and clear sibling context, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's core function. It does not explain return values or post-registration effects, but the schema covers the input parameters, and the tool's role is evident. The absence of an output schema is not a gap because the description focuses on the registration action.

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%, with each parameter well-described in the schema. The tool description adds marginal value by emphasizing that input/output schemas and pricing are required, aligning with the schema's required fields. It does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Register a new service') and the resource ('on the Remno marketplace'), making it distinct from sibling tools like ae_list_services or ae_get_service. It also highlights key requirements (input/output JSON Schemas and pricing), reinforcing the purpose.

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?

The description gives clear context that this tool is for registering a new service, implying it should be used when adding a service to the marketplace rather than for listing, discovering, or retrieving services. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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