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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real value beyond them: pagination behavior (100 per page, pass next_cursor back as cursor), the manual-vs-feed write-affordance signal, and the API key/access prerequisite.

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 purpose and then layers pagination and auth details efficiently. The opening field list ('address, price, site status...') is slightly enumerative but earns its place by previewing return content in the absence of an output schema.

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 previews the returned item fields and explains the manual/feed semantics plus pagination and auth. It stops short of detailing how site_status filtering (public/private/all) changes results, a minor gap for a 4-param tool.

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 limit, cursor, department and site_status are all documented by the schema itself. The description only adds the pagination relationship (next_cursor → cursor) and the 100-item page cap, which is marginal value over the existing structured fields.

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 (lists) and resource (listings) scoped to one department, and clarifies it mirrors ZooplaPro's view. An agent can immediately distinguish this from zoopla_get_listing (single) or zoopla_list_leads.

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?

Gives clear context for use (one department's listings) and useful routing logic: the upload method field indicates whether the write tools can modify an item. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool to use for other needs, so it falls just 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.