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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description states the call 'counts a visit' (persisted per owner per day, alongside a sibling `listing_history`). That is a modification of environment state, so the description directly contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation. Flagged as an annotation contradiction.

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 compact sentences with the primary mechanism front-loaded and no filler. Minor deduction for jargon ('302 hop', 'counts a visit') that could be stated more directly.

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 no output schema, the description should describe what the caller receives (the redirect target and the `X-Visit-Counted` header). It covers the header and the dedupe rule, but never explains the redirect destination or how a client is expected to follow the 302, leaving a real gap for a single-param 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?

Only one parameter (`id`) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the ID's format or scope, making the baseline 3 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 conveys the mechanism (a 302 redirect to the listing's origin URL) but uses jargon ('302 hop') rather than a plain verb+resource statement. It never clarifies how this differs from the sibling `get_listing` or `listing_history`, so an agent must guess which one to call for a given intent.

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 guidance and no alternative named among the many listing siblings (`get_listing`, `listing_history`, `listing_status`). The only implied usage signal is that calling it registers a visit, which an agent could infer but is not stated as a selection rule.

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