directory_activate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses a one-time listing fee, the exact cost (3 USDC), the chain/payment rail (Base via x402), and the result (listing goes live). It omits other material traits such as irreversibility of payment and what happens on payment failure, keeping it from a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence pairing the action with its cost and outcome. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded or repeated.

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 payment-gated mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts an agent needs: the precondition, the fee, and the resulting state. It stops short of describing payment-failure or idempotency behavior, though the schema's confirmNewPurchase note partially covers retries.

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 schema already fully documents both 'id' and 'confirmNewPurchase' with rich guidance. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource (activate an accepted directory listing) and adds the outcome ('your endpoint is live in the curated DE/EU marketplace'), so the agent understands what calling it accomplishes. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from (directory_submit/directory_status), so it stops short of a 5.

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 precondition 'accepted directory listing' implies usage (a human review has already passed), which points the agent at the submit→status→activate flow. However, it never names alternatives or an explicit when-not, and the guidance about checking status and avoiding duplicate purchases lives in the schema, not the description.

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