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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral value by enumerating the possible status values, which the schema does not expose as an enum. However, it says nothing about permissions/auth beyond the session token, ordering, pagination, or whether access is read-only, which an agent would want to know.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the scope and immediately followed by the returned status vocabulary. Zero padding and nothing that fails to earn 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of saying what comes back (all listings plus status) and enumerating the status values, which is the key missing structure. It omits ordering and pagination behavior for what could be a long list of listings, a minor remaining 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?

There is a single 'session' parameter, and schema_description_coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains where the token comes from and its length bounds. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clear resource and scope: 'Every listing of this account' plus the status field it returns. The verb is implicit ('list'), but the intent is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from (e.g. listings_published, which returns only a subset), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 word 'Every' – a broad personal-listing view – which naturally contrasts with listings_published, but that contrast is left for the agent to infer. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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