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

Annotations already establish this is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world call, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value on top: page size (up to 100), the next_cursor-to-cursor pagination loop, and the API key/access requirement. That is meaningful operational context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are individually lean. There is mild redundancy: the first sentence and the second both list the sale/lease/auction scope and the type/status/price/address fields, which could be merged. Still efficient overall.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the surfaced fields (type, status, asking price, address). It also covers pagination and auth, leaving little an agent needs that is missing, though it doesn't describe ordering or total counts.

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%, so the schema already documents type, limit, cursor, and status, making 3 the baseline. The description restates pagination ('pass next_cursor back as cursor') and mentions type/status as returned data, but adds no syntax or filtering nuance beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Lists the listings in My Listings') and scopes it as the user's own sale/lease/auction listings, which separates it from siblings like crexi_list_leads and crexi_search_comps. It also enumerates the returned fields, making the purpose concrete. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, so it's clear but not sibling-routed.

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 implied rather than stated: the description explains that listing_id feeds 'the other tools' and gives pagination mechanics, but never says when to choose this over crexi_get_listing, crexi_list_leads, or crexi_search_comps. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites beyond the auth note.

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