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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the cost structure (7 days for 19.00, 30 days for 49.00 in listing currency), which is genuine behavioral context. However, it omits the mutation's side effects: whether it requires payment authorization, ownership of the listing, or whether the boost is reversible.

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 that front-loads the seller scope and the placement effect, then the pricing. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical pricing slightly buries the core action.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the pricing detail is the most important addition and it is present. Still missing are the ownership/permission requirements and whether the operation involves a payment commitment, leaving the agent under-informed about consequences.

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 the 'days' enum values (7 and 30) to their respective prices, which adds real meaning, but 'listing_id' is left undocumented and required status is not noted.

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 states a clear action and resource: sponsored placement at the top of search, with the 'Seller:' prefix scoping the audience. It tells an agent exactly what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool.

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 the actor but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. There is no indication of prerequisites (e.g., must own the listing) or when a seller should choose this over other promotion paths.

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