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

The description carries rich behavior the annotations cannot: this is a two-phase preview/confirm flow where 'NOTHING changes' until confirm_action, publishing runs CRM-equivalent validation (photos, required details, agency listing limit), private listings incur a credit cost shown in the preview, and a linked PropertyList account is required because the change is made in the agent's name, so an agency API key alone is insufficient. This is exactly the kind of auth, cost, and reversibility context that structured fields omit.

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-loads the core action and the preview/confirm contract, then layers validation and auth details in separate paragraphs. Information-dense with no clearly wasted sentence, though the parenthetical asides make it slightly heavier than necessary.

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?

Given a mutation-style tool with an output schema (the preview), the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly and safely: the two-step commit requirement, the downstream confirm_action contract, validation behavior, cost implications, and the account-linking prerequisite.

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 75%, and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies the semantics of each status value (what 'online' actually triggers, when 'sold' is valid) and explains that sale_price is recorded for market statistics unless hide_sale_price is true. It does not, however, add format or range detail for reference.

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 (stage) plus the exact resource and the three target states (online/offline/sold), and distinguishes itself from create_listing by being a status transition on an existing listing ('one of YOUR agency's listings'). An agent can tell immediately what it does.

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?

Explains the context of use (staging a listing online/offline/sold) and routes the agent to the mandatory follow-up sibling, confirm_action, with the action_id. It also constrains 'sold' to a sale listing that is online or offline. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this for X, use create_listing instead' exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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