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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds the critical non-obvious side effect that 'Any edit also confirms the listing (Confirmed date = today).' It also mentions the return ('the listing's Marketplace status'). It could say more about what a mutation overwrites, but the side-effect disclosure is genuinely valuable beyond 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and id source, then the side effect, then routing. No wasted words; the 'tell the Broker in one line' instruction is terse and actionable.

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?

Covers purpose, id provenance, side effect, sibling routing, and return value, which is ample for a requires-4-param nested mutation with no output schema. Only slight gap is not elaborating on merge-vs-replace semantics for the nested 'changes' object.

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 100% and the schema already details every field (stage enum, price null semantics, name default, etc.), so the description legitimately defers to it. The one derived constraint it reinforces (closing is not a stage) is already in the schema. Baseline 3 for high-coverage schema.

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 ('Change one Listing') and anchors the id to its source tool ('id from find_listings'), immediately separating it from siblings like add_listing or close_listing. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Names the key exclusion explicitly: 'Closing is not a stage: for sold/leased use close_listing,' routing the agent away from a plausible wrong choice. It doesn't enumerate other adjacent options (confirm_listings, update_comp), so it's clear context rather than exhaustive when/when-not guidance.

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