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

Annotations only flag readOnly=false and openWorld=true; the description goes far beyond them by disclosing credit consumption, the pending AI-moderation state, the refund policy with the prohibited/spam exception, and both error paths (ACTIVE_LISTING_LIMIT_REACHED with pay_url, AUTH_REQUIRED with authoriz_url) plus the recommended user-facing recovery action. 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?

Six sentences deliver purpose, a format constraint, two preconditions, side effects, moderation/refund policy, and auth recovery — acroximately 180 words for a 9-param tool with 16 siblings. No sentence is redundant, and the critical constraints are front-loaded before the workflow details.

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?

This is a highly complex mutating tool with 9 params, nested location and details objects, credit side effects, moderation, and auth — yet preconditions, side effects with exceptions, and error recovery are all specified. Because an output schema exists, the lack of return-format prose is not a gap.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description compensates for the two most error-prone paramaters: it reinforces that location must be {lat, lon} coordinates, and it defines the images semantic — keys returned by request_image_upload, not URLs. However, six paramaters including the opaque details object receive no added meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Publish a listing on behalf of the user' — and immediately scopes it to the 4 verticals and 12 roles. This clearly distinguishes create_listing from mutation siblings like update_listing, delete_listing, renew_listing, and set_listing_status without needing to inspect any 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?

Gives explicit workflow guidance: a prior get_entitlements call to confirm credit and slot, a prior request_image_upload call for each photo, and a connected Teppek account are all stated as prerequisites. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or route to an alternative, but the precondition sequencing defines the usage context clearly.

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