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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses versioning, Ed25519 signing, public modification history, that content is not stored/updated, and the return value (updated listing plus signed receipt). This is rich behavioral context beyond the simple 'modify' verb.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: scope and fields, versioning/authentication consequences, and return/auth requirement. Front-loaded with the action and fields, no filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, ownership, safety profile, versioning, delivery-endpoint alternative, and return value. Since there is no output schema, the mention of the return is useful, though a bit more detail on the receipt structure or required listing_id would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is high (75%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds useful context for active ('delist/relist') and clarifies ownership, but does not add meaningful detail for title or description beyond what the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Modify one of your existing per-query listings') and lists the exact editable fields. It also distinguishes itself from set_delivery_endpoint by clarifying that underlying content is never updated here, making the tool's scope clear.

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?

The description gives clear directional guidance, explicitly pointing to set_delivery_endpoint for changing underlying data content. It does not compare with the sibling deactivate_listing, but the active field covers delisting/relisting, so the usage context is mostly clear but not fully exhaustive.

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