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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the safety bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: optimistic concurrency via expected_updated_at and the side-effect that 'Updates do not resend subscriber alerts'. That notification behavior is not derivable from structured 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the required workflow, then the side-effect note. No filler, though the workflow and concurrency points could be compressed slightly.

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 destructive mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers auth, the required pre-read, concurrency handling, and notification behavior. It omits which fields the changes object accepts, but the nested schema already enumerates those.

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 50%: management_token and expected_updated_at are documented in the schema, while slug and the nested changes object are not. The description reinforces the token source and explains what expected_updated_at is for (conflict detection), but adds nothing for slug or the updatable change fields.

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 ('Update a seller-owned listing') and immediately names the auth mechanism (private management token or emailed edit code). It is clearly an edit operation, distinguishable from publish_sale and cancel_sale, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 ordering requirement ('First call get_sale and show the proposed changes to the seller') and names the sibling to use as the prerequisite, plus conflict handling ('conflicts require re-reading'). Clear context, but no explicit statement of when not to use it vs publish_sale or cancel_sale.

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