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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are ordered newest-first and are restricted to the listings this connection is permitted to edit, which is a permission-boundary fact an agent could otherwise get wrong. It does not mention pagination or result-count limits, which is the remaining gap.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the permission scope and packs ordering and return shape into a few words. Nothing is padded and nothing needs reordering.

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 zero parameters, full annotation coverage and an existing output schema, most of the burden is already carried by structured fields, and the description covers the two facts the schema cannot: permission scoping and ordering. Only the absence of any note on result volume or how to proceed with the returned ids keeps it from being complete.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The phrase 'newest first' does useful work by telling the caller not to re-sort client-side.

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 (listings), the scope (those 'this connection can edit'), the ordering ('newest first'), and the return payload ('with their ids'). That is enough to separate it from siblings such as get_listing_status or get_listing_analytics, which operate on a single listing. It stops short of 5 only because the verb itself is left implicit in the title rather than restated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of what to do instead if the caller wants a different listing set, and no note that the returned ids are what the set_listing_* tools consume. The permission-scoping phrase hints at the tool's role as a discovery step, but that inference is left entirely to the agent.

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