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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add the parts annotations cannot express — and it does, disclosing cursor pagination bound to the query and page-size limits. It still omits how continuations are obtained, which the schema alone implies.

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 front-loaded sentence with the browse-vs-search distinction first and the pagination constraint second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to cover input behavior and query semantics, which it largely does for query and size. It leaves the cursor parameter and the size-bound discrepancy unresolved, a real but narrow gap.

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 67% and the description maps roughly onto that: it restates the 1–50 page-size range and the name-based query but adds no meaning beyond the schema. The undocumented searchAfter cursor, the most error-prone parameter, is untouched, and the stated 1–50 range sits uneasily against the schema's declared 0–255 bounds.

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?

A concrete verb-plus-resource statement: "Browse or search public listing sources by name" tells an agent exactly what is enumerated and that filtering is name-based. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling getPublicListingSourceBySlug, which retrieves a single source, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Browse or search" plus "by name" implies that omitting the query browses and supplying text searches, but the description never states that condition or names the single-source sibling as the alternative for a known source. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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