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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations it discloses that no credential is needed, that the id is unguessable, that unreviewed content is never returned, the full state lifecycle (every submission born pending, safety check, human review on risk findings), and the 60 s per-PoP cache. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before polling.

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?

The purpose and state list are front-loaded well, but the text runs long and repeats the same point twice ('only the decision comes back' appears in the opening and again near the end). The lifecycle explanation earns its place, the duplication does not.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract — and it does, naming all five possible states and clarifying that no content is returned. Combined with the polling and auth guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: the id format (`lst_…`), that it is unguessable, and that it comes from the `id` field of the POST /api/listings response (surfaced there as `status_api`).

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 verb and resource ('moderation state of a listing') and enumerates the exact return values (pending / live / low / hidden / blocked). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_listing, which returns the page itself rather than the decision.

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 explicit when-to-use ('poll it after create_listing', 'the receipt you poll after POST /api/listings') and a cadence constraint ('poll every few minutes, not every second') because answers are cached 60 s. It implicitly separates itself from get_listing by stressing that only the decision comes back, but never names the alternative explicitly.

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