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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses an important response quirk: the payload can be a compact schema/data structure where rows are matched positionally to schema, and that this is not an error and does not need a second pass. It also notes the auth context ('Requires HGRApi Header channel / ChannelOAuthId resolved internally'), adding operational context not covered by annotations.

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 purpose and store-resolution prerequisite are front-loaded, and most sentences carry operational value. It is dense and slightly sprawling with back-to-back directives, but the length is largely justified by the tool's complexity and ambiguity around source/origin fields.

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?

Given 7 parameters, an output schema, and a non-obvious compact response format, the description covers everything an agent needs: store resolution, aggregation usage, source vs. origin semantics, response interpretation, export exclusions, and auth context. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic distinctions not present in the schema: 'source' means supplier/source marketplace, 'sourceId' is only for resolving visible supplier names, and 'origin' is the listing creation mechanism. It also explains that fields/sortBy/sortDirection/limit can be passed directly for aggregation.

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 ('Lists active listings') for a specific scope ('selected visible store/channel'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like hgr_get_listings, hgr_get_pending_listings and hgr_get_terminated_listings by naming the active-listing aggregation use cases it covers.

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 explicit prerequisites ('First resolve the store with hgr_list_channels'), routing instructions for rankings/filtering/summaries, and a clear exclusion ('Do not use this tool to construct CSV, XML, XLSX, feed or bulk export files'). It also tells the agent which field to request for supplier questions and which field not to use (origin).

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