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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/idempotent, so 'Nothing is changed' largely restates structured data. The genuine added value is the severity contract (block/warn/hint) and the cross-tool consequence that block findings are also refused by offers_create and offers_update_content — behavioral context an annotation could never carry. Not exhaustive (no batching or account-binding caveats), hence 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then the severity taxonomy, then the workflow — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It is dense and runs long for a single block, but every clause carries information.

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 need not explain the return shape, and it correctly focuses on purpose, severity meaning, and sequencing. It omits practical calling context (batch limits, per-draft vs aggregate scope, account binding), so it is strong but not complete for a 2-parameter batch tool.

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 description coverage is 50% (only 'account' and 'model' are documented), and the description partly compensates by listing the draft fields that matter (title, description, pictures, attributes, brand, EAN) and framing them as a batch input. But it adds no per-field syntax, required-ness, or format detail, so it stays at the baseline-plus level for a partially documented schema.

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?

Names a specific action (check), a specific artifact (a draft listing), and enumerates the fields inspected (title, description, pictures, attributes, brand, EAN) plus the rulesets applied (marketplace rules and the seller's house rules). The timing constraint ('before it is sent') and the output (every finding with its severity) further pin it down so it is distinguishable from siblings such as offers_validation_errors or titles_audit.

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 an explicit workflow: 'Run it on every draft, fix the blocking findings, then create or update.' That tells the agent when this tool belongs in a sequence. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the 5 bar of explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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