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

Annotations declare idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds critical behavioral context beyond them: the write is a full replacement of prior terms, it hits the live listing, it requires the manage token, and the floor is never shown to buyers. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure that prevents accidental data loss.

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?

Four tight clauses, front-loaded with the replacement semantics that matter most, and every sentence carries load (scope, replace behavior, idempotency, auth, visibility, alternative).

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers the mutation's destructive scope, auth requirement, idempotency, and buyer-visibility of the floor, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds buyer-visibility semantics for the floor and frames autoAccept as tied to the floor rule, giving meaning the schema fields alone do not convey.

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 ('Set a listing's asking price, private floor and auto-accept rule') and immediately names the read-only sibling to use for inspection. An agent can distinguish it from get_seller_listing without opening either 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?

Explicitly directs the agent to use get_seller_listing to read current terms first, and gives a precise call pattern ('send every field you want to keep'). Both when-to-use and the alternative tool are stated.

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