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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral nuance: the full draft is only returned 'once prepared', implying a state-dependent response. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations, though no additional traits like rate limits or auth are mentioned.

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 is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action ('Read the state') and then specifies the conditional output. There is no redundancy or fluff; every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the parameters represent, how the response is structured, or any preconditions beyond 'once prepared'. The agent lacks sufficient information to correctly call the tool without external knowledge.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the three required parameters (reference, listing_token, schema_version). The agent must rely on parameter names alone, which are ambiguous without context. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent unsure of what values to provide.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies both a resource ('listing request') and a conditional outcome ('full draft with its revision digest and every fact and source'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like approve_listing or get_offering, and the agent can infer exactly what operation this performs.

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 description implies usage for checking status or retrieving a prepared draft, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_offering or evaluate_situation. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and purpose.

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