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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value on top: which artifacts are returned, that the contract is conditionally prefilled from a listing id, and that checklist deadlines are derived from the sale date.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the returned artifacts with their conditions. No filler, though the comma-list style is heavy and could be split for readability.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by enumerating the template, checklist, documents, costs and sources. Parameter roles are largely covered by the schema; only minor gaps (default language handling, country-specific coverage) remain.

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 75% and the schema already documents lang, saleDate and listingId. The description reinforces the conditional effects of listingId and saleDate but adds no format, defaults or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete resource bundle (sale-contract template, change-of-ownership checklist, handover documents, costs, official sources) for a specific task: closing a private car sale. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_listing or create_listing, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the scenario ('closing a private car sale in a country'), and the conditional behaviors are stated ('prefilled when a listing id is given', deadlines 'computed from the sale date'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, so it stays at implied level.

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