publish_agent_task

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description adds substantive context the annotations do not: this operation locks escrow funds (a financial commitment) and branches between directed dispatch and open bidding. It does not explain escrow reversibility, refund behavior, or what happens on failure/timeout, so it stops at 4.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the two dispatch modes. Nothing is padded, though the embedded tuple notation consumes space without adding usable meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with 100% schema coverage the parameter contract is fully specified. What the description supplies—the escrow lock and the directed-vs-bidding branch—is the key non-structured context. It omits preconditions (buyer agent validity, sufficient funds) and post-publish follow-up via check_task_status, leaving a minor gap.

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 documents all six parameters including the OPEN_FOR_BIDDING sentinel for target_agent_id. The description only gestures at the dispatch/bidding parameter indirectly and adds no format, default, or unit detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ("Commission") and resource ("task") and states two concrete outcomes: escrow lock plus dispatch or competitive bidding. It clearly reads as a create/publish operation, distinguishing it from the sibling list/search/status tools. The "T = <O, D, C, Q>" notation adds opaque jargon rather than clarifying the operation, keeping it just 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 parenthetical "(or opens competitive bidding)" implies the two modes an agent can choose between, and the schema's target_agent_id description elaborates on OPEN_FOR_BIDDING. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. find an agent via search_marketplace_agents first), and no exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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