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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results are raw API listing rows rather than normalized objects, and responses are paginated. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action and its scope come first and the alternative-tool routing comes second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

Six optional, well-documented parameters make this a simple filtered-list tool, and pagination plus the raw-row format are disclosed. With no output schema, though, the description never says what a listing row actually contains, leaving an agent to guess the fields it will get back.

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 100% and the enum parameters carry detailed, non-obvious explanations (notably the AI-generation seller-declaration caveat), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so it cannot exceed that baseline.

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 ('Search the public catalog and return listing rows') and names the underlying endpoint GET /v1/listings, which pins down the result shape. It routes person-lookup traffic to the 'search' sibling, so an agent can separate it from at least one alternative, though the boundary with get_asset and match_video_spec is left unstated.

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 one explicit routing sentence ('To find data for a person, use search, then fetch') gives real when-to-use guidance against a sibling. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_asset, match_video_spec, or search_assets' own paginated traversal, so usage is only partially implied.

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