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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds behavior annotations don't carry: a specific failure mode (404 no_template when the listing has none) and an access/cost condition ('Free, no payment or account required'). That is meaningful added context.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then usage, then error/cost. The field enumeration is dense but each clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully characterizes the return payload (output_schema, verification rules/bounds/enforce_rules, template_url). Combined with the error case and free-access note, it covers what an agent needs to call and interpret this 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already explains listing_id is a UUID obtainable from search_listings. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 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 resource ('a listing's verification template') and enumerates its contents (output_schema, rules, bounds, enforce_rules, template_url), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It also implicitly separates itself from siblings like build_template and prepare_verification by describing the read-only retrieval role.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use it with the Agent Output Verifier (prepare_verification builds the call),' naming the complementary sibling and its role. It lacks a stated when-not condition, but the pairing guidance is clear enough for correct selection.

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