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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by explicitly stating 'Does NOT publish' and clarifying the non-destructive drafting behavior. It also provides an example that illustrates the expected input pattern. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences long and each sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool's function, the second draws the critical boundary with publish_listing, and the third provides a concrete usage example. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Although the tool has 9 parameters, the description covers the core purpose, the non-publication boundary, and gives a realistic example. The output schema is available to explain return values, so the description doesn't need to. The mention of OAuth for publish_listing also provides useful context. Slightly more detail on how to structure inputs for the optional parameters would push this to 5, but it is complete enough for an agent to use the tool 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 description coverage is only 11% (only knownIssues has a description), so the description must compensate. It does so implicitly via the example '2021 Specialized Allez, very good condition, in Bristol,' which maps to year, brand, model, condition, and city. However, it does not explain other parameters like willShip, groupset, or frameSize, though their names are somewhat self-explanatory. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 the tool's specific function: 'turn a seller's raw facts into a polished Cyclesite listing draft' with concrete outputs like title, description, suggested price, and photo plan. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling publish_listing, positioning this tool as a drafting helper rather than a publication tool.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Sell-side helper' and 'Useful for previewing what a listing would look like.' It also names the alternative: 'for actual publication use publish_listing (requires OAuth),' making the decision between these siblings unambiguous.

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