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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-redundant behavioral fact: the required OAuth scope `listings:read`, which an agent must satisfy before calling. It does not disclose pagination or default-result behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the auth prerequisite, then a usage example — no wasted wording. The example sentence is mildly redundant with the purpose statement but serves as a routing hint.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile; the description supplies purpose, scope, and auth requirements. The remaining gaps — default status behavior and page size handling — are minor for a zero-required-parameter list 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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description partially compensates by naming the three status values, though it omits the 'all' enum member actually present in the schema. It says nothing about the `limit` parameter or default values, so it does not fully close the coverage 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource — 'Show the authenticated user's Cyclesite listings' — which clearly scopes the call to the caller's own data, distinguishing it from siblings like get_recent_listings or search. It also enumerates the status buckets (draft / active / sold). It stops short of naming an explicit sibling it is not, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied through the example utterance ('how are my listings doing?') and the OAuth scope requirement, so an agent can infer this is the self-scoped listing tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for browsing other sellers' listings.

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