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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the polling contract (poll_after_seconds), the shape of the draft payload including revision digest and what ACI self-verified, and the Listing Terms fields (version, url, sha256). Error states, token expiry, and what happens if the token is stale are not covered.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the opening sentence is a long run-on with deeply nested parentheticals that make it hard to scan. The operational instructions in the following sentences are useful and earn their place, but the payload enumeration could be split or trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values — and it does so thoroughly for four distinct response branches plus the polling field, which is the main risk for an agent here. The gap is on the input side: no explanation of the three required parameters or of failure modes when a token or reference is invalid.

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 description coverage is 0% across all three required parameters. The description explains the response thoroughly but never defines 'reference' (what entity it identifies, 20-char limit), 'listing_token' (provenance, 200-char limit), or 'schema_version' (a fixed const). With no schema documentation to lean on, this is a material gap for correct invocation.

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 — 'Read the state of a listing request' — and then enumerates the distinct states it can return (domain-proof options, prepared draft with revision digest, Listing Terms, published URL). This lets an agent distinguish it from write-side siblings like approve_listing or update_listing_answers, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 concrete operational guidance: poll again after poll_after_seconds while ACI is working, and present the draft plus Listing Terms summary/link before requesting approval. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings such as evaluate_situation or get_offering, so the routing guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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