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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive mutation. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the status change is publicly visible to everyone on the marketplace, a per-call confirmation is on by default, and it requires a Cotlet API key with app access. It does not describe reversibility or response format, but the added disclosure is substantive.

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, but the confirmation guidance is stated twice ('By default you confirm each call...' and 'Reaches other people: confirm with the user before each call'), which is redundant. The dashboard comparison sentence is also filler.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, no output schema needed, and full schema coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs to call the tool correctly: scope, valid status constraint, visibility, and auth/confirmation requirements. Minor gaps around reversibility remain.

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%, so both parameters are already documented (status as offered in the dashboard, listing_id from list_my_listings). The description reinforces the status constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb (change/update) and resource (a listing's status on the marketplace), with concrete examples (under contract, sold). An agent can distinguish this from crexi_get_listing and crexi_create_listing without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Clear context: it acts on one of your listings and the status must be one the dashboard offers for that listing. This scopes valid usage well, though it names no explicit alternative tool or exclusion condition.

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