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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: idempotency is pinned by requester_key plus identical body, changed input conflicts, confirmation queues review without publishing raw text, pending reviews expire after seven days, removed-route history is retained, and private data is not exposed publicly. It also states that a verified private email is required and that the tool never signs payments.

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 front-loaded and information-dense, and most sentences contribute selection or invocation value for a complex mutation workflow. However, it is a dense run-on paragraph with several packed clauses, making it harder to parse than a more structured presentation would be.

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 complex schema, nested objects, oneOf structure, and lack of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers prerequisites, idempotency, supported change fields, verification steps, expiration, status mode, and privacy boundaries. It still leaves some return-shape details for the status action implicit rather than fully specified.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter burden well: it explains the control header/credential, current revision, fresh and reusable requester_key, listing_id or origin for status, optional request_id for correction outcome, and the supported changes. It also clarifies non-obvious semantics such as same-origin website URL and the full replacement active endpoint list with up to 50 GET/POST paths.

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 a specific verb and resource: requesting a free reviewed listing correction, with a secondary status-reading mode. It distinguishes the confirmation step by naming confirm-ownership-proof, though it does not explicitly contrast with other listing-related siblings such as update_listing_preferences.

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?

It gives clear usage context: a verified private email is required, the current revision and a fresh requester_key must be supplied, and the same key plus identical body should be reused after an uncertain response. It also explains the post-submission verification flow and status action, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus alternative listing tools.

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