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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing partial-update semantics ('leaves the others as they are'), propagation timing (live within 1 hour), a side effect (price change marks the performance chart), the default confirmation requirement, the 'confirm with the user before each call' safety rule, and the Cotlet API key auth requirement.

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 action and editable fields effectively, but the 1-hour propagation timing is stated twice in nearly identical sentences ('Normally live on Zoopla within the hour' vs 'normally go live on Zoopla within 1 hour'), which is redundant padding in an otherwise dense paragraph.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: partial-update behavior, publish timing, who can use it, confirmation/safety expectations, and auth. Nothing material is left unexplained.

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 the schema already documents both fields, including the same editable-field list that the description repeats. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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) plus resource (listing) and enumerates the exact editable fields (price, description, features, photos, video, floorplan). It also scopes itself against siblings by excluding feed-sourced listings and by being an edit rather than a status/creation change, so an agent can place it without opening the schema.

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 when-to-use context ('Manual uploaders only') and an explicit exclusion ('Listings sent by a property software feed cannot be changed here'). It does not name a sibling alternative for the excluded case, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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