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

The annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description does not need to re-explain safety. It adds useful behavioral context: a key is required, payouts flow through connect_payouts, and the output is a sales kit containing the exact buy call with via=<agent_id>. This is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotations.

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 description front-loads the core purpose and includes useful details, but the motivational sentence 'Your principal says "go and make money": this is how' and the dense parenthetical add some fluff. It remains understandable, but it is not as tight as it could be.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is mostly complete. With no output schema, it usefully describes the returned sales kit contents and points to connect_payouts for the money flow, though it does not cover error cases or listing ineligibility.

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%, so the listing_id format and example are already documented. The description adds meaningful selection semantics by saying the listing must be a resale listing found via search_listings resale=true, which goes beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource as the sales kit for a resale listing and lists what that kit contains: what it does, price, earnings per sale, and the exact buy call with via=<agent_id>. It distinguishes the tool from search_listings by pointing there to find eligible listings, though the verb is more descriptive than direct.

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?

It explicitly says to find eligible listings with search_listings resale=true and notes the key requirement plus payout routing via connect_payouts. It gives clear context for when to use it ('principal says go and make money') but does not spell out when not to use it or compare with buy directly.

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