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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered. The description adds useful state-transition consequences about review status and the blocked rejected-listing case, though it does not clarify partial-update semantics or permissions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the editable fields and followed by the key review-state rules. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers ownership, editable fields, and review-state behavior, though it could say more about partial updates or whether slug itself is ever mutable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, including slug as the identifier from my_listings. The description reinforces which fields are editable but adds little format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Edits one of your listings') and enumerates the editable fields, making it clearly distinct from sibling creation/upgrade tools such as submit_product and upgrade_listing. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Provides clear eligibility context: editing a non-live listing sends it back for review, live listings stay live, and rejected listings cannot be edited. It does not explicitly name alternatives for related tasks, but the conditions for valid use are concrete.

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