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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: external homepage fetch, a screening step, an expected ~30 second runtime, and that the call returns a draft plus the next step. This tells the agent both the latency profile and that success may be a draft rather than a published listing — none of which is encoded in readOnlyHint/openWorldHint.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by runtime, return shape, and auth requirement. No sentence is redundant, and the slow-operation warning arrives before the call is made.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it does, how long it takes, what comes back, and that auth is required. There is no structured output contract to defer to, and the description fills that gap adequately.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already explains url as the product homepage with an example. The description only adds the constraint that it must be the user's own site, which is a useful scoping nuance but not syntax or format detail — this is the baseline-3 case.

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 action and resource: starting a free listing for the user's own website, with the concrete sub-steps (loads homepage, screens it, drafts the listing). 'Drafts' plus 'returns the next step' implicitly separates it from publish/update_listing siblings, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening a schema.

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 a clear usage condition ('the user's own website') and a prerequisite ('needs an access token'), which is what an agent needs before calling. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. update_listing for an existing listing) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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