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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (write op, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), and the description adds context about the dual publish/update nature and the gating precondition of readiness and client confirmation. It does not, however, explain what an update does to existing listing data or what the readinessToken actually validates. No contradiction with 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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, for a tool with 10 parameters, 7 required, and a dual create/update mode, it is under-sized — this edges toward under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

The tool has high complexity (10 params, idempotency semantics, readiness-token workflow, dual publish/update) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry nearly all the explanatory weight. Thirteen words leave the agent guessing about ID relationships, preconditions, update behavior, and parameter provenance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the 10 parameters, but it names none. Critical semantics are entirely undocumented: how to obtain readinessToken, the distinction between noteId, mediaId, and fileId, what amountMinor represents (minor currency units), and how idempotencyKey should be used.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Publish or update') and a specific resource ('media marketplace listing'), clearly conveying the action. The word 'media' partially distinguishes it from the sibling publish_note_listing, though it does not explicitly contrast against publish_note_listing or publish_page.

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?

The phrase 'after readiness and client confirmation' implies a workflow sequence — suggesting validate_listing_readiness should precede this call. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus publish_note_listing or publish_page, and no exclusion or alternative conditions are named.

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