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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses what actually happens: the user's email is sent externally to Infrabase, a human replies by email, and no charge is incurred. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then precondition, then cost/effect disclosure. No filler.

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?

Covers purpose, precondition, data handling, response mode, and cost for a non-destructive mutation with no output schema. The only gap is that it does not resolve which of product/product_url/product_name to supply, though the schema hints at this via per-field descriptions.

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 coverage is 60%, with email/message/product_name undocumented. The description clarifies the side effect of the email parameter (it is forwarded to a third party) but does not explain the product vs. product_url vs. product_name branching (listed vs. not-yet-listed paths), leaving the agent to infer the schema's wording alone.

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 and resource ('Sends a featured-listing request for a product to Infrabase.ai'), and names the recipient service. Siblings are mostly read/list tools (list_models, search_tools, model_prices), so this mutation tool is clearly distinguishable.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Call it only after the user has confirmed.' It does not name the sibling featured_listing_info as the informational alternative, but the timing guidance is clear and actionable.

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