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

Annotations establish the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description is not the sole source. It adds meaningful behavior beyond that: this is a paid, currency-denominated placement with two priced tiers, which the agent must surface to the user before invoking.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the pricing detail. No filler, though the parenthetical pricing is somewhat dense and the sentence omits an explicit verb.

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?

For a paid mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and cost but omits what the agent still needs: confirmation/return behavior, whether the boost is immediately applied, and payment/permission requirements. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps each 'days' enum value to its price (7 days = 19.00, 30 days = 49.00) and clarifies the currency basis, which genuinely enriches that parameter. However, listing_id is left entirely undefined.

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 resource and effect clearly: a seller getting sponsored placement at the top of search, with pricing. It reads more like a feature blurb than an explicit action statement, but an agent can still infer this promotes a listing, and no sibling performs the same boost action.

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 'Seller:' prefix implies seller-only context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as update_listing or create_listing. Nothing tells the agent when boosting is or isn't appropriate.

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