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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds real context beyond them: partial-update behavior, that the ID and URL are preserved, that the change is reversible ('the old value goes back with one more call'), that no notification goes out ('reaches no one directly'), and an explicit auth requirement for the Cotlet API key. The only mark against is the cryptic phrasing of the reversibility claim.

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 piece is reasonably short, but sentences like 'It reaches no one directly' and 'the old value goes back with one more call, so it runs without asking' are ambiguous and cost the reader more parsing than they return. Some tightening would help.

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 no output schema, the description usefully states it 'returns the updated values', covers the auth requirement, and the annotations carry the safety profile, so an agent has what it needs to invoke it. Minor gaps are the absence of error/failure behavior and of any tie-in to list_listings beyond the schema's own reference.

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 fully documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the partial-update semantics of 'fields' and notes the ID is retained, but adds no formats, constraints, or validation details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Change fields of one of your listings'), making it plainly distinguishable from immobiliare_create_listing, delete_listing, and get_listing. It does not, however, explicitly name any sibling to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description conveys patch semantics ('Changes only the fields you pass') and that it returns updated values, which implies the edit use case, but it never states when to prefer this over get_listing or create_listing, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the API key. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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