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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the return includes user-written notes and a 'removed' flag for listings that left the portal, plus the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access). Pagination behavior for the cursor is left to the schema, so not a full 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 tightly packed sentences: what it returns first, the chaining hint second, the auth requirement last. Slightly redundant between 'Listings you saved...' and 'Returns your saved listings...', but no wasted sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the return-shape burden (notes, removed flag) and pairs it with the downstream id and auth requirement. For a simple two-optional-param read tool this is nearly complete; only pagination sequencing via cursor is unaddressed.

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% with two optional parameters (limit, cursor) fully documented in the schema itself. The description mentions ad_id only as an output field for chaining, adding nothing about the limit/cursor inputs. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 ('List saved listings') and distinguishes the scope precisely: 'Listings you saved with the heart icon' versus the sibling immobiliare_list_listings which returns the agent's own listings. The added detail about notes and a removed flag makes the exact payload unambiguous.

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?

Provides concrete downstream routing — 'Use ad_id from each item with get_listing, contact_advertiser and request_visit' — which tells the agent how this tool connects to siblings. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs immobiliare_list_listings or get_listing), so it stops short of a 5.

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