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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that authorization is not direct: purpose is forwarded and the gateway policy decides whether access is allowed. This is a valuable behavioral nuance, and there is no contradiction with the destructiveHint annotation, though the description does not elaborate on side effects.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. The primary verb-resource statement is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the policy nuance without extra 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?

The main authorization flow is described, including the purpose forwarding and gateway policy, but the description omits return values, error semantics, and any meaning for max_price_cents. With no output schema, an agent must still infer several important runtime details.

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 compensate, but it only clarifies the purpose parameter's forwarding behavior. The required listing_id and max_price_cents parameters receive no additional meaning, leaving the agent to infer their semantics from names alone.

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 clearly names the verb and resource: 'Authorize signed access to a governed listing.' It specifies the purpose-forwarding behavior, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool complete_access, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description implies usage by stating what the tool does and explaining the gateway decision, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not contrast with alternatives like complete_access or procure.

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