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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: execution happens on live fetches, the caller pays the base fetch cost with no seller markup, and the returned result is bound to a specific manifest_hash of the draft. It also discloses the invalidation behavior on draft edits and the required auth scope, none of which appears in the structured fields.

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, then layers cost, return shape, invalidation, and auth in four tight sentences. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: per-input passed/reason, valid_records, completeness, and manifest_hash. Combined with the costing and invalidation notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents draft_id and its origin. The description adds only indirect meaning by tying the draft to its test_inputs and manifest_hash, which is baseline-adequate rather than compensating for any gap.

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: it runs each test_inputs entry of a draft on live fetches and scores it. That is clearly distinct from sibling draft operations like alterlab_listing_draft_create and alterlab_listing_publish, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives real preconditions: it needs an API key with listings:write scope, and the result is invalidated when the draft is edited, which tells the agent to re-run after changes. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g. 'call publish only after this passes').

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