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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: validation refuses scam-shaped or off-list fields by name, and the call returns a listing id plus awaiting_payment status. It omits auth/session requirements, idempotency, and whether a draft can be edited or withdrawn, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences that lead with what the tool does, then the input instruction, then the refusal behavior and return value. No filler, though the deferral to listing_describe is doing work the description arguably should do itself.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, validation behavior, and the returned status, which is solid. It remains incomplete on required-parameter meaning (terms/consent flags, session) and authorization, so an agent still needs listing_describe and the schema to call it correctly.

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 15% across 13 parameters (7 required), so the description must compensate. Instead it delegates wholesale to listing_describe ("lists the fields") and says nothing about the semantics of required fields like termsVersion, termsAccepted, authorised, or session, leaving most parameters unexplained in both places.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Creates a listing draft on Wen Receipts") and signals that this is the pre-payment stage, which separates it from listing_confirm_usdc and the listing_pay_* siblings. It is clear and specific, though the sibling separation is implied (draft vs payment) rather than named.

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 directs the agent to listing_describe for the field list and implies the next step via "status awaiting_payment", but never explicitly states when to call this versus listing_confirm_usdc or the payment tools, nor any prerequisites beyond sending the fullest profile.

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