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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description goes beyond that by explaining that non-writable fields are rejected with guidance, that null clears but live listings refuse to clear publishing-required fields, and that the response is the full updated listing.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence covers a distinct rule (field naming, writability, enum/null semantics, return value). The parenthetical-heavy prose is dense but not wasteful.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers validation, rejection routing, clearing semantics, and the return value. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying attributes to the get_registry writable flag, showing the attr_ naming convention, and specifying multiselect arrays and null-clear behavior.

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?

Specific verb (set), resource (broker-authored attributes), and scope (a listing you own). It also routes field-name discovery to get_registry and hot-column updates to update_listing, which distinguishes it from both siblings.

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?

Explicitly states the alternative for non-writable fields ('use update_listing for those') and points to get_registry as the source of valid field names. The ownership requirement is stated, so an agent knows the precondition.

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