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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds the crucial non-obvious trait: this tool produces a guide rather than performing the creation, and it requires a separate browser session to actually execute. It also discloses the underlying API limitation with a checked date. What's missing is any note on authentication state or what the returned steps look like in structure, but the key surprise is well covered.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core correction that it returns instructions rather than acting. The final sentence on API absence is useful justification but is phrased awkwardly ('Immobiliare.it's official API: Immobiliare.it has no public API...'), costing a bit of polish. No filler beyond that.

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 zero-parameter guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and what to do next (browser tools). Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing, though the output format's structure is only described loosely.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a 0-param schema applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to request the walkthrough.

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 second sentence makes the actual behavior explicit: the tool returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) and 'opens nothing by itself,' which resolves the ambiguity of the name 'create_listing.' It also names the follow-up tool family (cotlet_browser_*) so an agent can place it in a workflow. The opening phrase 'Create listing in the user's own Immobiliare.it account' is slightly misleading until the correction lands one sentence later.

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 clearly states the usage pattern: call this first to get the walkthrough, then execute it with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. It also justifies why this indirection exists (no public API for listings, messages or visit requests). It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name a non-browser alternative, but the workflow context is clear.

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