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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description earns credit for adding scope detail the annotations cannot express: only edits made by the owner's agents are included, and the payload carries changeIds that feed undo. It does not say how many changes are returned or their ordering.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, ending with the downstream-use hint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers scope and the undo linkage. The remaining gap is not naming undo_change as the follow-up tool or indicating result size/recency window.

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 listingId parameter already carries the 'Listing id from list_listings' provenance note. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline 3 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 resource and scope: the latest edits on a listing, attributed to the owner's agents, plus the returned changeIds. This separates it from generic siblings like get_edit_summary or check_revision_notes, though it never names those alternatives 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?

'with changeIds for undo' implies the workflow (fetch here, then call undo_change), but the linkage is only hinted at rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_edit_summary/check_revision_notes, and no when-not guidance.

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