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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: waitSeconds is a long-poll that holds until something changes, and 'a video usually takes a few minutes' sets an expectation for how long polling may be needed.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: the status set comes first, then the id routing, then the long-poll behavior and latency hint. The telegraphic opening ('Where a draft or a listing is:') is slightly awkward English but wastes no words.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't document return values, and it covers both id forms, the wait parameter, and realistic latency. The only gap is that zero required parameters are declared and the description never says what an id-less call returns or whether it errors.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by clarifying that draftId keeps reporting after the draft becomes a listing, and by restating the wait semantics (up to 25 seconds, holds until change). It doesn't explain what happens if neither id is supplied, which is the remaining ambiguity.

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 names the resource (a draft or listing) and enumerates the exact status values it reports (collecting, awaiting_owner, declined, processing, ready, needs_attention), which is far more specific than the title. It falls short of 5 because the verb is elliptical ('Where a draft or a listing is') and it doesn't explicitly contrast with nearby readers like get_listing_analytics or get_confirmation.

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 call-shape guidance (pass draftId or listingId) and the draftId note implies you can start polling right after start_listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for other listing-inspection needs. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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