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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not repeat those. It adds meaningful context beyond annotations by clarifying that this tool does not publish, is a sell-side helper, and is meant for previewing. This is useful behavioral disclosure not present 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?

The description is two sentences plus an example, with the core purpose stated first and the exclusion of publishing immediately after. No redundant words; every sentence earns its place. The example is illustrative and concise.

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 the tool has an output schema and annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint), the description is largely complete. It states what it does, what it doesn't do, and gives a concrete use case. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., seller facts are required) but that is implicit from 'turn a seller's raw facts'. Minor gap but not critical.

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 description coverage is only 20% (only knownIssues and itemCondition have descriptions). The description does not systematically explain parameters, but the example ('2021 Specialized Allez, very good condition, in Bristol') maps to year, brand, model, condition, and city, giving implicit semantic hints. However, it does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'turn a seller's raw facts into a polished Cyclesite listing draft' and enumerates what the draft includes (title, description, suggested price, photo plan). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from publish_listing by noting it does NOT publish, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: 'Does NOT publish — for actual publication use publish_listing (requires OAuth).' It states the use case (previewing a listing) and names the alternative tool, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions. The example further illustrates the intended invocation.

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