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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: the Sentinel scan categories, live claim verification (repo_url HTTP 200, install against real registries), 422 on false claims, L1.5 certification pending L2 merge, description-only never merged, and no-auth. This is exactly the destruction/auth/outcome context an agent needs.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and nearly every sentence earns its place by conveying pipeline behavior. It is a dense single block that could be split for scannability, but there is little wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema or annotation coverage, so the description must explain the full lifecycle, and it does: inputs validated, claims verified, rejection codes, storage outcome, review stages, and auth posture. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic constraints on repo_url (must exist, HTTP 200) and install (must reference a real package on npm/PyPI/crates/Docker Hub) that go beyond the schema's field descriptions. It does not, however, add meaning to the dry_run parameter or skill sub-fields generally.

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 ('Publish a skill to the MarketNow catalog') and explicitly frames itself as 'the write side', which distinguishes it from read/query siblings like marketnow_search_skills. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 '(the write side)' framing plus the full validation/certification pipeline gives strong context for when this tool applies, and it clarifies submission outcomes (description-only vs. substantive). However it never explicitly names an alternative sibling or states when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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