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

Annotations only give the generic false/true flags; the description adds substantial context: this is a staged mutation that changes nothing until confirm_action, it returns a preview plus an action_id, and it requires a linked PropertyList account because the change executes under the agent's own CRM permissions. These are exactly the behavioral facts annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the staging behavior and the confirm dependency before the permission and account preconditions. Sentences are dense and each carries information, though the final account-requirement sentence is slightly parenthetical and could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description still supplies everything else an agent needs: the staging/confirm lifecycle, the permission gates, and the account prerequisite. Nothing relevant to calling it 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 for 'colleague' — supply the name as it appears in the CRM, and ambiguous matches are surfaced as a list rather than resolved silently. 'reference' is not elaborated beyond the schema, which holds it back from a 5.

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?

The opening sentence states a specific verb and resource with scope ('Stage assigning one of YOUR agency's listings to a colleague'), and the second sentence distinguishes it from the confirmation step by naming confirm_action. An agent can separate this from siblings like set_listing_status or move_pipeline_stage without opening any 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?

It spells out the two-step workflow (stage now, confirm_action later after the agent says yes) and enumerates who is permitted to invoke it: agency admins, anyone who can edit every listing, or the current assignee; unassigned listings are open to anyone with listing-edit rights. The alternative (confirm_action) and the gating condition are explicit.

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