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

While annotations confirm it is read-only, the description goes much further by detailing the exact output behavior, such as providing the header, checking 'in_forest' status, listing specific 'notices' (e.g., no readable price), and indicating potential errors.

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?

Although the initial setup sentence is technically dense, the content is highly necessary, detailing all the validation checks (derived fields, notices, dimensions) that justify the tool's existence. It is appropriately structured for a complex validation tool.

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 description is extremely complete, covering the functional difference, the specific items generated in the output (header, notices, errors), and the intended use-case workflow, making it highly reliable for an agent.

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 100%, meaning the schema already describes the parameters completely. The description focuses almost entirely on the output behavior and the conceptual difference from post_listing, rather than adding unique semantic meaning to the inputs.

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 precisely defines the tool's purpose: it replicates the functionality of post_listing but performs a check/draft operation instead of a write action. It explicitly contrasts itself with its sibling tool, post_listing.

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?

It provides explicit workflow instructions: 'Use it to draft a listing until it lands in the forest, then post_listing it.' This clearly defines the proper usage context and required sequence relative to the production tool.

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