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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true; the description goes well beyond by detailing the async pipeline steps, the returned pipeline ID for progress tracking, and the exact failure mode (unmet readiness checklist, content-moderation-blocked photos). That is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the outcome, return value, and failure condition. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 complex async mutation with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, the return (pipeline ID), and the error path well. It stops short of telling the agent how to subsequently track progress (e.g., via get_publish_status) or whether publishing is reversible, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the implicit constraint that the hashid must reference a draft listing, which is marginal added meaning over the schema's 'Hashid of the listing to publish.'

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 (kick off the publish pipeline) and resource (draft listing), plus the full outcome: AI enrichment, market data gathering, transition to Active. The 'draft listing' scoping and the pipeline-ID tracking detail implicitly separate it from update_listing and get_publish_status.

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?

It implies usage conditions (listing must be a draft) and states a failure condition (unmet readiness checklist), which is helpful. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus alternatives like get_publish_status or withdraw_listing, nor does it direct the agent to check readiness before calling.

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