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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds the scope of what can be changed but does not clarify partial-update behavior, permissions needed, or what happens to omitted fields.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It says what the tool does immediately, though it is under-informative in other dimensions.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not mention the required listing parameter, partial-update semantics, or how the remaining parameters (category, location, condition, auto_accept_at) should be used.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining 11 parameters. It vaguely references 'text' (which could mean title and/or description) and names price, quantity, photos, and auto-accept, but omits listing identifier, category, location, condition, and auto_accept_at, leaving substantial gaps.

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 uses a clear verb ('Change') and names the target resource ('your listing'), then enumerates several mutable fields: text, price, quantity, photos, and auto-accept. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like listing_create, listing_get, or listing_close, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

The implied usage is to modify an existing listing, which is reasonable given the tool name and description. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as listing_close for closing or listing_create for new listings.

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