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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the validation pipeline (Sentinel-scan, live URL/package checks), rejection with 422, acceptance flow (certified-L1.5, pending L2 review), description-only never merged, pricing flexibility, no auth, and secret rejection. This is exemplary transparency beyond what the schema could convey.

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 a single dense paragraph that opens with the core purpose and then packs in validation details, rejection behavior, acceptance flow, pricing policy, authentication, and a security warning. Every sentence carries essential information; there is no filler, and it is efficiently front-loaded.

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 complex submission tool with no output schema, the description covers validation, rejection, storage in the auditable queue, review status, description-only handling, pricing, authentication, and secret handling. It gives an agent a complete picture of what will happen when the tool is invoked. The absence of an explicit return-value description is not a gap given the depth of behavioral detail.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that repo_url is probed for HTTP 200 and install must reference a real package on npm/PyPI/crates/Docker Hub, and clarifies that pricing is vendor-set and security-verified rather than regulated. These details extend beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 leads with 'Publish a skill to the MarketNow catalog (the write side)', which is a specific verb and resource, and explicitly marks it as the write counterpart to the other read/verification sibling tools. This makes the tool's role unmistakable even 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 description provides clear context by calling it 'the write side', implying it is for submission while siblings like marketnow_check_domain, marketnow_verify_trust, and marketnow_search_skills handle other concerns. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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