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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds meaningful context by disclosing the OAuth scope requirement and the authenticated-user scope, which are not present in annotations.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core action and resource. The example adds practical clarity without any redundant or verbose 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?

For a simple read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, auth requirement, and an example. It could explain how listingId filters results, but the output schema and parameter names largely fill that gap.

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?

The input schema has only 50% coverage, with `listingId` lacking any description. The tool description does not mention either `limit` or `listingId`, so it does not compensate for the missing schema detail. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value to them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the exact resource ('buyer enquiries on the authenticated user's Cyclesite listings'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_my_messages. The natural-language example further clarifies the intended use case.

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?

It provides clear context by specifying the OAuth scope and tying the tool to the authenticated user's listings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., get_my_messages) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops 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.