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

Annotations already declare the write, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the listing must currently be inactive, and the confirmed flag gates execution, which is state and safety context not encoded in the 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with the action and precondition leading. "Requires confirmed: true" is somewhat redundant with the required array and the confirmed parameter's own description, which is a minor waste.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema and 50% parameter documentation, the description covers the precondition and the dry-run gate but says nothing about the failure mode when the listing is not inactive, or what data (price, photos) is restored on relist. Adequate but with clear 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 50%: confirmed is well documented in the schema, but listing_id is undocumented there. The description compensates by qualifying listing_id as one the seller owns and that must be inactive, adding real semantic constraints beyond the integer bounds. The confirmed sentence largely restates the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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 a specific verb (relist), the resource (one of the seller's own listings), and the target state (back on the marketplace from inactive). This clearly separates it from listing_create and seller_update_listing, though it never explicitly names an alternative sibling, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

"Only an inactive listing can be relisted" gives a concrete precondition for when the tool applies, which is real usage context. It does not, however, route the agent away from alternatives (e.g., use listing_create if the listing is gone, or listing_discard_draft for drafts), so it stops short of the explicit when/when-not of a 5.

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