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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added context is what matters: a 5-item batch cap on Pro plans and the behavior for 'stale or refused countries' (they read unknown). That is genuinely useful call-time behavior, though nothing is said about auth requirements, rate limits, or how partial failures across multiple apps are surfaced.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the exclusion rule. The batch-limit qualifier and the unknown-state caveat are compressed tightly with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by listing the profile sections, plus it flags the batch cap and the unknown-country behavior. Minor gaps remain around multi-app failure handling and how to interpret the concise versus detailed formats.

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 75%, so the schema largely documents the parameters; the description only echoes the section names (ranks, metrics, tools) that already exist as an enum in 'include'. It adds nothing about the 'apps' ref format, the 'context' goal field, or when to choose response_format=detailed versus concise.

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 names the specific resource (a listing profile) and enumerates exactly what comes back: app, country availability, ranks, metrics and MCP tools. It also states the batch scope (up to 5 on Pro) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the discovery-oriented sibling listings_search.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('Use this when you need a listing profile') and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('Do not use for discovery; use listings_search'). An agent has a clear routing rule without needing to read either schema.

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