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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds substantive behavior: removed listings excluded unless include_removed, drafts returned separately in drafts_awaiting_photos, and status semantics (Removed never comes back vs Inactive recoverable). This goes well beyond 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 single dense sentence tries to pack status taxonomy, pricing basis, and draft handling together; it's front-loaded with the core purpose, but the wording is convoluted and hard to parse (e.g., 'never back', 'null on one lifted to its floor'). Appropriate length but poor structure.

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 no output schema, the description gives a solid picture of return content (status, pricing_basis, fees, link, plus drafts_awaiting_photos) and filter behavior. The unexplained include_sold and the muddy pricing-basis sentence are minor gaps.

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% and both parameters are documented there. The description reiterates include_removed's effect but doesn't add syntax or nuance beyond the schema; include_sold is not discussed in the description despite being a param. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it returns the seller's own listings with per-listing status, pricing basis, fees, and link. Distinguishes from catalog_search_listings implicitly (this is 'the seller's own'), but doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like catalog_get_listing or seller_list_sales.

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?

Usage is implied: 'the same list Your Listings shows' and the include_removed explanation give context, but there's no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., use catalog_search_listings for the public catalog).

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