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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: result ordering (newest first), the shape of each row, and the response-driven pagination signal (next_page). It doesn't discuss scoping to the authenticated user or result limits beyond the schema's page size.

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, zero filler. Identity and payload come first, then the slug special case, then the pagination instruction — a sensible front-loaded order.

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?

Rich annotations, a full output schema, and 100% parameter coverage mean the description only needs to supply ordering, pagination-loop behavior, and single-vs-list mode — all present. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: slug switches the call to single-listing retrieval and overrides paging, and next_page is framed as the continuation token to feed back into page. It doesn't restate the 1–500 / 100-per-page bounds, which the schema already handles.

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+resource — the caller's own listings on Neeed Directory — plus the ordering (newest first) and the returned fields (status, plan, badge, admin feedback, page to open). That is clearly distinct from sibling list/search tools, though the description never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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 concrete routing rules within the tool: "Pass a slug to get one" for single-listing mode, and "When next_page is a number, call again with that page for older listings" for the pagination loop. It does not mention when to prefer siblings like update_listing or search, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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