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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: authentication-bound resolution, strict scoping to the caller's own listings, and newest-first ordering. This gives the agent an accurate mental model without contradicting 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?

Two tight sentences carry all the essential information with no filler. The most decision-relevant facts, ownership scope and ordering, are front-loaded, and status guidance follows naturally.

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 read-only list tool with pagination parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, ordering, and status semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description partially compensates by explaining the practical meaning of status values ('pending' awaiting moderation, 'rejected' declined). However, limit and offset are still left to the schema's defaults/constraints, which are self-evident but not semantically enriched.

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 ('List'), resource ('the user's OWN listings'), and scope ('any status, newest first'). The explicit ownership boundary distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_listings or get_listing.

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 explains how to use status filters to view pending or rejected listings, and the 'only ever returns this user's listings' statement signals when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the ownership scoping is enough routing context.

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