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

Annotations already declare mutation, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: terms are fully replaced rather than partially updated, and the floor is never shown to buyers. It does not clarify what happens when floorCents is omitted (cleared vs unchanged), but the replacement wording largely covers this.

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 are front-loaded with the core action and each adds distinct value: fields controlled, replacement semantics, and privacy behavior. There is no filler.

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 five-parameter mutation with an output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the key non-obvious behavior: full replacement of prior terms and buyer-invisible floor. Minor gaps remain around floorCents null/clearing behavior and unit confirmation, but invocation is well-supported.

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 40%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantics for priceCents, floorCents, and autoAccept by explaining the private floor, buyer invisibility, and automatic acceptance. However, it omits units (cents), the minimum of 1000, nullability of floorCents, and the bearer-token role of manageToken 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 (Set) and resource (listing terms) and names the three controlled fields: price, private floor, and automatic acceptance at or above the floor. This makes the operation clear, though it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_seller_listing or act_on_order.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. 'Replaces the previous terms' hints at idempotent overwrite but does not help an agent choose this tool over related seller or offer tools.

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