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

Annotations confirm destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description substantiates those: it replaces the prior set, an earlier approval 'no longer counts', and the public profile is unaffected until the company approves the new revision and it passes the automated check. It also clarifies that the free-text note is kept but not published and does not change the draft. This is rich lifecycle and side-effect disclosure beyond the 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 core operation and its replacement semantics are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence covers a distinct lifecycle stage. Some sentences are long and dense, but the information is non-redundant and earns its place.

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 destructive, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the full draft-vs-published workflow, the replacement behavior, the approval invalidation, and the revision cadence. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without guessing at side effects.

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 only 20%, so many parameters (reference, listing_token, schema_version, and most answer fields) rely on their names alone. The description does add real value for 'answers' (complete set, full replacement) and 'note' (stored with the request, unpublished, does not modify the draft), but it does not compensate for the broad coverage gap across the nested answer object.

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 specific verb and resource – sending/correcting the company's structured answers as a complete replacement set – and the parenthetical 'it replaces the previous one' pins down the exact write semantics. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like approve_listing or request_listing without opening any schema.

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 clearly delineates the two usage contexts: once a draft exists it requests changes, and after publication the same call updates the published profile while the public profile stays as it is until approval. It explains when each flow applies but never names alternative sibling tools or states when NOT to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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