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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), it discloses substantive behavior: the listing goes live only after editorial review (up to 48h), returns an ID with status in_review, photos/floor plans come from URLs, and per-call user confirmation is required. The 48-hour review fact is repeated verbatim, which dilutes the value slightly.

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 key points are front-loaded, but the review-delay fact appears twice ('up to 48 hours' repeated) and the confirmation guidance is split across two sentences that say much the same thing. The repetition costs space without adding information.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important gaps: auth/key requirement, user-confirmation policy, photo upload mechanism, and the return value (ID plus in_review status) along with the post-submission review delay. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 all nine parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds only light semantics, noting that photos and floor plans are uploaded from the URLs passed, without elaborating on required fields, units, or the contract enum.

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 ('Post a new listing') plus the visibility tier ('free BASE visibility'), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_listing, delete_listing, or get_listing. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Makes clear this is the creation path and adds operational guidance (confirm each call by default, opt-out available, needs a Cotlet API key with app access). It does not explicitly route the agent away from sibling tools like immobiliare_update_listing, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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