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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the new link invalidates any earlier seller link, that the report is privacy-scoped to visit counts, and that there are two execution modes with a confirmationId handshake. These details match destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false while adding real operational context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the destructive consequence and the approval mechanics. Slight informality ('Needs the person's yes') costs a little precision but nothing is padded.

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?

For a single-parameter mutation with a rich output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: what gets replaced, what is exposed in the report, and how the approval flow returns a confirmationId. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents its origin ('Listing id from list_listings.'). The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-complete tools applies.

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: 'Create the private seller report page ... and its link', and constrains the content ('visit counts only, no names'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_listing_links or get_seller_update, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 conditional context: it runs immediately on a Full control connection, otherwise it returns a confirmationId and waits for approval, and it needs the person's consent. However, it never states when to choose this over sibling tools such as get_listing_links or get_listing_analytics, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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