register_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the revenue benefit but does not mention side effects, irreversibility, visibility of the listing, approval processes, or whether changes can be made later. This is a significant gap for a marketplace publishing operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the purpose and benefit. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and the tool's mutating nature (publishing to a marketplace), the description should provide more context about what happens after registration, such as listing visibility, confirmation responses, or potential errors. It currently only explains the benefit, leaving the agent without a full picture.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description's mention of 'price in DAC' reinforces but does not extend the schema's clarity.

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 clearly states the action ('Publish a tool you built') and the resource ('marketplace'), with a specific revenue angle that distinguishes it from sibling tools like purchase_tool or register_agent. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 clear context: use this when you have built a tool and want to sell it in the marketplace. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling context and the description's specificity provide sufficient guidance. Slight deduction for not stating when not to use or mentioning prerequisite steps.

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