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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing two behavioral traits the annotations cannot express: partial-update semantics and the editor-review delay before live listings actually change. It stops short of saying what happens to non-live listings or whether an editor can reject changes.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence carries distinct information (update scope, then moderation timing). Nothing is wasted 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?

The moderation caveat and partial-update rule are the right things to front-load for a mutation tool with no output schema. But for a 23-parameter tool with nested objects and 39% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it never addresses the required listing slug's source, the optional API key/auth path, or the Pro-only fields hinted at in the schema.

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?

With 23 parameters and only 39% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not — it names no field, no format, and no constraint. Many parameters (name, features, platforms, logo_url, pricing_model, starting_price, extra_categories, has_api, and the nested socials keys) carry no description in either place, so the agent is left guessing at their meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Changes fields of one of the account's listings') and clarifies the edit scope. It does not name a sibling such as submit_tool or create_payment, so an agent must infer from the name alone that this edits rather than creates.

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?

'Only the fields you pass change' establishes partial-update usage, which is genuinely useful guidance for a 23-parameter tool with one required field. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., Pro-tier fields like cta_url/cta_label), and no pointer to my_tools for obtaining the required slug.

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