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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, and operates in an open world. The description adds a two-step preview-then-save flow, but the referenced apply parameter does not exist and the meaning of proof is left unexplained, making the behavioral disclosure incomplete and somewhat misleading.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose. The final sentence about confirm/apply is concise but confusing because apply is not an accepted parameter.

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 should explain what the preview returns and how proof is supplied. Instead it references an unsupported apply step and omits proof semantics, leaving the agent without enough information to complete the two-step operation reliably.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It names listing_id and proof, but does not explain the proof enum values (email/domain), and it introduces a non-existent apply parameter, leaving key parameter semantics unclear.

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: re-read title, description, and image from the listed page. The operation is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like submit_listing or change_listing_url, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides procedural guidance for invocation: send listing_id and proof only, first confirm previews, then apply saves. It does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like confirm_edit, and the apply step is not represented in the schema.

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