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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: the post enters an operator review queue before going live and content is governance-audited. This reveals that creation is not immediate and content is subject to moderation, which is valuable beyond what schema or annotations state. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, but the schema covers api_key.

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 main action and embellished with a succinct explanation of the review process. There is no redundant information or unnecessary detail; every clause contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and consequences.

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?

With an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description covers the key non-obvious context: the review queue and governance audit. It does not need to explain return values or parameter formats since the schema handles that. While it could mention how to check post status afterward, that is not essential for a well-scoped create tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning to individual parameters; it only implies that body and title content are audited, but that is a global behavioral trait rather than parameter-specific guidance. Thus, the description adds no additional parameter semantics 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 opens with 'Create a new KA§§A marketplace post,' using a specific verb and noun that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like market.browse, market.message, and market.stake. It also adds context by stating the post enters a review queue, making the purpose 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when creating a marketplace post. It also provides context that posts are reviewed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The absence of alternatives is acceptable because this is the only creation tool in the market group, so the context is adequately clear.

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