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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that edits trigger admin review and listing becomes pending, and reappears only after re-approval. It also mentions the authentication requirement. It does not cover rate limits or other side effects, but core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, constraints/consequences, and authentication. Front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given 8 parameters and low schema coverage, the description covers the key behavioral effect (review) and ownership constraint. An output schema exists but its content is not described. The description is adequate but lacks parameter detail and error handling guidance.

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 13% (only slug described). The description only generically mentions 'fields of a listing' without detailing specific parameters like name, url, tags, etc. It does not add meaning beyond the schema for most parameters.

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 clearly states the tool updates fields of a listing the user owns, by slug. It explicitly mentions constraints like not changing ownership or review status, and distinguishes from siblings like get_listing, submit_listing, etc.

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?

The description says when to use: to update your own listing. It lists constraints and consequences (admin review on edit). It implies when not to use (e.g., for viewing, use get_listing) but does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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