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

Adds rich context beyond the annotations: confirmation is required by default and can be disabled, live changes are visible to buyers/renters, the quality score may be recalculated, the updated fields are returned, and the user's Cotlet API key is needed. These details about side effects, confirmation flow, and auth go well beyond what readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false already convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action and follows with side effects, confirmation, and auth needs in a logical order. A little redundant between the default-confirmation sentence and the 'reaches other people' sentence, and the platform prefix restates the title, but every sentence largely earns its place.

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?

Given two required parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover safety, the description fills most gaps: it explains partial updates, side effects, auth, confirmation, and return behavior. It could be slightly more complete about error conditions or exact field-passing format, but it is adequate for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by listing concrete field categories (price, description, images, permit, agent) that go beyond the schema's vague 'Any of the create_listing fields' for the fields parameter, though it does not explain the string format or how to structure the fields argument.

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) and resource (listing), enumerates the fields that can be modified, and clarifies partial-update behavior. It distinguishes update from create by noting untouched fields are left alone, though it does not explicitly name publish/unpublish/upgrade siblings to route the agent away from those status-change tools.

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?

Implies usage for modifying an existing listing and notes the live visibility and quality-score side effects, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like create_listing, publish_listing, or upgrade_listing. The agent must infer that this is the correct tool for field edits rather than status changes.

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