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

Going well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false), it discloses propagation timing ('go live within 1 hour'), a per-call confirmation default that can be switched off, external visibility ('Reaches other people'), and the API-key/scope prerequisite. The only tension is that it lists 'delete' while destructiveHint=false, but the status appears resettable, so this reads as a reversible state change rather than a contradiction.

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-loaded with the action, then the constraints and operational notes. Mostly every sentence earns its place, though 'Listing status shows the buyer or tenant what stage the property is at' is explanatory filler that could be dropped.

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 to cover, the description supplies everything an agent needs to invoke safely: eligibility limits, timing, confirmation behavior, external-impact warning, and auth requirements. Nothing material is left to inference.

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% and both status parameters already carry enum values and descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the status vocabulary in prose but adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules (e.g., whether site_status and listing_status can be combined).

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?

The description states a concrete multi-action verb set (publish, hide, delete, mark under offer/sold/let agreed/let) against a specific resource (a listing's status). It clearly separates itself from generic siblings like zoopla_update_listing by scoping to site/listing status transitions.

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?

It gives strong when/when-not guidance: 'Manual uploaders only' and 'Listings sent by a property software feed cannot be changed here', plus the confirmation requirement. It stops short of naming a specific sibling alternative for non-manual cases, which keeps it below a 5.

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