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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral detail: inputs are validated against terms, off-list or scam-shaped fields are rejected by name, and the call returns an id with status awaiting_payment. It omits auth/consent requirements implied by the session, termsAccepted and authorised parameters, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, and the parenthetical pointing to listing_describe earns its place. Minor jargon ("scam-shaped") adds slight ambiguity but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does cover the return shape (listing id + awaiting_payment) as well as the validation behavior, which is the most important part. For a 13-parameter, 7-required mutation with nested objects and no annotations, it still leaves the auth/session expectations and the post-draft payment path unexplained.

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 15% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not — no meaning is given for name, about, profile, register, services, languages, enquiryEmail or the terms/authorised flags. Pointing at listing_describe is a useful workaround for discovery, but it is a delegation rather than added parameter semantics.

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 ("Creates a listing draft") plus the outcome state ("awaiting_payment"), which cleanly separates it from the payment siblings (listing_pay_*, listing_confirm_usdc) and from listings_published. It is clear about what the tool does, though it never explicitly names those payment siblings as the next step.

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 gives one concrete directive — call listing_describe to learn the fields and send the fullest profile — which is genuine usage guidance. However it never states when to choose this over the alternatives or what the intended follow-on flow is (confirm/pay/withdraw), so the workflow context is only implied.

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