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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the authoritative read semantics ('as the store reads them'), that counts appear at the top, and that notices are rule-worded upcoming checks that would break a listing, complete with an example. It omits auth behavior and any pagination or size limits.

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?

It is a single tight paragraph with the identity and scope front-loaded and the escape hatch to update_listing last. The version marker '(0.61.0)' is slightly noisy, and the parenthetical about notices is dense, but little is wasted.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so well by naming counts, placement, price, and notice structure. Safety is handled by annotations and the sole parameter by the schema, so the only remaining gap is how large the result can get.

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?

There is one optional api_token parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a clear explanation of the header alternative. The description adds nothing about it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It states a specific resource and scope: the caller's own listings as the store reads them, enumerating the returned facets (placement, price, notices). An agent can separate it from mutation siblings such as update_listing, though the difference from check_listing or browse_store is not spelled out, and the phrasing ('as the store reads them') is more evocative than precise.

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?

'Fix one with update_listing' explicitly routes the agent to the mutation sibling, and 'Your listings' sets a clear context (my own inventory, not the open store). It stops short of exclusions, so it never says when check_listing or browse_store is the better pick.

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