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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world), while the description adds overwrite semantics, the default fallback to ?ref=curlship, and the tier gate that causes refusal. It omits any mention of the required `proof` parameter or how ownership is verified, which is the main behavioral gap.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: capability, validation grammar, reset behavior, and eligibility all front-loaded in that order. The compact charset notation conveys a lot in few tokens.

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 a 3-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the tracking map thoroughly but leaves `proof` — a required enum tied to authorization — undefined, so an agent may need to guess or call speculatively.

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 33% — only `tracking` is documented in the schema, and the description compensates well there by specifying allowed keys (ref or utm_*), count limit, charset, and value length. But `listing_id` and especially `proof` (enum email/domain) are left completely unexplained, so an agent cannot infer what proof value to send or why.

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 (set tracking params on a paid listing's outbound link) plus the eligibility tier (Bronze and up). No sibling tool touches tracking params, and the description makes the scope of the write unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not condition ('Free listings are refused') and an explicit reset recipe ('Send {} to clear back to ?ref=curlship'). It does not name a sibling alternative for related URL work such as change_listing_url, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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