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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds real substance beyond them: it specifies exactly what becomes public (address, dates, text, photos), discloses a side effect on third parties (nearby subscriber alerts), and warns that the returned per-sale management token is private and must never appear in public content or URLs.

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 precondition, then effects, then the return/token handling. Every clause adds information an agent needs; nothing is filler.

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 usefully names the return values (live URL plus a private management token) and covers the safety-critical side effects and retry semantics. It leaves minor gaps such as whether the draft resource is consumed or archived after publishing.

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 must carry the load. It conveys semantics — draft_id is the prepared draft and verification_code is the seller's emailed code — but says nothing about the UUID format or the required 8-digit pattern, so it only partially compensates.

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 (publish) and resource (a prepared sale), and pins the lifecycle stage with 'only after the seller reviews it and supplies their email verification code', which cleanly separates it from prepare_sale, cancel_sale and update_sale.

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 precondition for use is explicit — the draft must be prepared and the seller must have reviewed it and supplied a verification code. It also notes that repeating the same draft/code is safe, which tells the agent retries are acceptable. No sibling is named as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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