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

Annotations mark it destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds context the annotations cannot: the mandatory two-call confirm pattern, the token expiry window, the human-approval precondition, a prompt-injection warning against self-confirming, and the get_update_status/releaseId tracking path. This is exactly the extra behavioral context the annotations lack.

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 purpose, then the operational sequence, then the alternative. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the clause 'It needs a person's approval and takes two calls, like submit_update' partly duplicates the following sentences and lengthens an already long block.

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 no output schema, the description still tells the agent what to expect back (a change summary and confirmToken, then a releaseId) and where to go next (get_update_status). The approval guardrail and sibling alternatives complete everything an agent needs to invoke 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 baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully adds to it: appId-only on the first call, confirmToken only from the first call and only after approval, holdPublish deferred to submit_update semantics. The only gap is that holdPublish's exact behavior is delegated rather than stated inline.

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 ('sends the saved listing changes to Partner Center for certification') plus the scoping distinction 'on their own, without a new package', which separates it from submit_update which carries a new package/draft. An agent can pick this out from the 21 siblings without opening a 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?

Explicit routing: two-call flow, human approval gate, 10-minute token validity, re-ask on draft/holdPublish change, and a named alternative ('to send listing changes together with a new version, use the update flow instead; submit_update carries the draft'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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