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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses validation behavior ('scam-shaped or off-list field is refused by name'), that no money changes hands yet, and what is returned (id + awaiting_payment). It omits auth/session requirements, the consequences of missing terms acceptance, and idempotency or error handling.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. Slightly informational but each sentence contributes (behavior, field guidance, return value).

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and sparse schema coverage, the description covers return values and one validation rule but leaves too much unsaid about authorization (session), the terms gate, and required-field expectations. It is adequate but not complete enough for a 13-parameter tool.

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 only 15%, with 13 parameters (7 required) including nested objects. The description does not explain any parameter semantics itself and instead redirects to listing_describe, which is a reasonable pattern but leaves required fields like termsVersion, termsAccepted, authorised and services unexplained within this definition.

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: 'Creates a listing draft on Issafu.' The word 'draft' plus the awaiting_payment status distinguishes it from the confirm/pay siblings, though it does not explicitly name them. An agent can infer this is the pre-payment creation step.

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?

'Send the fullest profile you can (listing_describe lists the fields)' is a useful instruction and points to a sibling for field discovery. However, it gives no guidance on when to call this versus listing_confirm_usdc or the pay tools, and no prerequisites or ordering constraints are stated.

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