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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: which figures are gated behind Pro membership (campaign emails/opens/clicks) and the auth requirement. It omits things like the time window covered or pagination, but with annotations carrying the safety burden this is solid.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core metrics before the definitional glosses and the Pro caveat. Each sentence carries information (metric enumeration, scoping, auth), though the metric definitions could be trimmed slightly without losing the agent's ability to call the tool.

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?

Appropriate for a single-parameter read tool with no output schema: it describes what the return numbers mean, which is the agent's main unknown. It is slightly incomplete in that it never states the time period the analytics cover, but annotations and the simple schema leave little else an agent needs.

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 100% and listing_id is already documented in the schema as 'Listing ID from list_my_listings.' The description adds no parameter-level detail (no format, no source hints beyond what the schema states), so it sits at the baseline 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Get listing analytics') and then enumerates the exact metrics returned (impressions, page views, visitors, document opens, plus campaign emails/opens/clicks). The phrase 'the numbers the property overview dashboard shows for one listing' pins the scope unambiguously, so an agent can distinguish it from crexi_get_listing or crexi_list_my_listings without opening a schema.

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 only implied: an agent infers you call this to read a single listing's performance metrics. It notes one prerequisite ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app'), which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance and no exclusions (e.g., versus crexi_get_listing or a leads report).

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