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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the two-phase approval flow, journal-before-dispatch ordering, fail-closed behavior for stale or changed targets, and that credentials and approval secrets are never returned. It also warns that fee approval does not authorize other financial actions, which is behavioral context an agent could not infer from the 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first two sentences, but the text is dense and repetitive: consent scopes are stated twice in near-identical phrasing, and the long negative enumeration of forbidden actions reads as a list rather than prose. It is informative but bulkier than needed for a two-parameter tool.

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?

Given a mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers preconditions (OAuth scopes, EDIT_LISTINGS, approved owned store), the approval sequence, idempotent recovery behavior, and failure modes. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it safely appears to be 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 both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by emphasizing that the key must be reused after a lost response and that a replacement intent must never be created to bypass uncertainty, reinforcing the idempotency contract rather than merely restating it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Publish one exact eligible owned listing to one explicitly selected eBay export connection using native staging and fee approvals.' It further scopes the operation against siblings with explicit exclusions ('No bulk search execution, other marketplaces, moderation bypass, repricing...'), so an agent can distinguish it from execute_listing_submission and preview_marketplace_publish 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?

It clearly states when to invoke: 'Continue the original publication intent after its separate native staging or fee approval' and gives a concrete recovery path ('inspect the original operation with its original key'). Exclusions are enumerated thoroughly, but the alternatives are described by action rather than by sibling tool name (e.g., supercatch_get_operation is never named), leaving a small inference step.

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