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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses substantive behavior: FIFO attribution is not verified physical unit age, holds stay unallocated, missing dates and truncated history are explicit unknowns, pages are live observations with no whole-store total, expired cursors require a fresh search, and store:read plus live VIEW_ANALYTICS are required. It does not contradict the annotations, though the consent requirement is repeated twice and much of the closing text restates the same no-mutation claim in different words.

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?

Roughly a dozen dense clauses for a two-parameter read tool, with visible duplication: the no-mutation guarantee appears twice, the consent requirement twice, and the 'unknowns' caveat three times. The first sentence is well front-loaded, but the tail reads as stacked boilerplate rather than prioritized information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers consent, store eligibility, cursor expiry, omission policy, unknown handling and typed errors — all an agent needs to call it correctly. The remaining gap is scope-vs-sibling clarity against supercatch_get_listing_stock_aging, not missing mechanics.

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%, so both limit and cursor are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the invariant that the same account, connection, store and page size must be kept when reusing a cursor, which is useful but does not extend parameter semantics meaningfully beyond the schema baseline.

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 opener gives a concrete verb and object: traverse undeleted positive-on-hand listings per native snapshot, across statuses and product types. It is clear what is returned, but it never distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling supercatch_get_listing_stock_aging, so an agent must infer which of the two to pick.

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?

One genuine routing hint is given: use supercatch_get_listing for exact listing details because labels and URLs are omitted here. Otherwise guidance is implied rather than stated — there is no when-to-use vs supercatch_get_listing_stock_aging or vs supercatch_list_low_stock, and the sentence 'Use supercatch_list_stock_aging for this read' is circular and adds nothing.

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