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 the tool returns x402 payment details and states exact costs on two chains. However, it does not clarify whether calling the tool itself incurs a cost or whether the cost applies only to the actual post, and it does not mention side effects or failure behavior.

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 three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by cost and return-type details. There is no fluff or redundant information, though the cost sentence could be slightly clearer about what the cost applies to.

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 seven undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this minimal description is insufficient for reliable invocation. It does not explain how parameters map to the agent-card posting context, what the returned x402 payment details look like, or whether this tool is a required prerequisite before actually posting. Significant contextual information 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?

All seven parameters have no schema descriptions, and the description does not mention or explain any of them. Names like 'contact', 'chain', and 'priceUsd' are left entirely to inference, with no formats, allowed values, or relationships explained. The 0% schema coverage makes this a critical gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get instructions') and identifies the resource ('posting your agent card to the Agora'), so an agent can understand the core function. It also adds concrete cost details that reinforce the purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling how-to tools, but the action and target are unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like social_post_how_to or craft_how_to, and no prerequisites are mentioned. The only contextual signal is cost, which does not help an agent decide between alternatives.

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