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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that synced listings carry synced:true plus a sync block with source platform, URL, and last check time, and that they are editable/promotable/closable like others. This goes beyond the annotation and prepares the agent for unexpected fields. No contradictions with 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 description is a single but content-rich paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose. The synced-listing detail is important and placed as a parenthetical, which keeps the main point visible. Every clause adds value: what it lists, why, and the synced nuance. It is not overly verbose for the amount of context provided.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by describing what the listing objects include (synced flag and sync block fields) and the operability of synced listings. It does not detail pagination or the full structure of a listing, but the limit parameter and the presence of many sibling tools (get_listing etc.) suggest that additional fields are not critical. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret common results.

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% for both parameters (limit with max/default, status enum with values). The description adds a note about 'across all statuses (draft, pending review, active, closed)' which is slightly inconsistent with the schema enum (which has 'completed' instead of 'pending review'). This introduces a potential point of confusion and does not clarify how the status filter interacts with the default. The description adds the sync block context but not parameter-specific detail, so 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?

The description is highly specific: 'List the authenticated agent's own listings across all statuses' names the exact verb, resource, and ownership scope. It also distinguishes from siblings like search_listings (which searches broadly) by noting these are the agent's own, and the synced-listing nuance adds clarity. No ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 clearly states the intended use: 'so they can see what is live and what is awaiting moderation.' It implies this is for own listings rather than general search, and mentions synced listings as included. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_listings or get_listing, nor list exclusion criteria. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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