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

Annotations already indicate the tool is destructive, non-read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds useful context beyond that by specifying the OAuth scope `listings:manage` and by showing a natural-language invocation example. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the auth requirement and a useful example. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what the tool does, required permission, and how natural-language input may look. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly distinguishing this from related tools, but the combination of description, schema, and annotations is sufficient for an agent 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 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds value by paraphrasing the optional fields ('final sale price, where it sold and the date it sold') and providing a natural-language example that maps to salePriceGbp, saleVenue, and soldOn. However, it does not clarify the listingId parameter, which is also undocumented in the schema.

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: 'Mark a Cyclesite listing as sold', with optional details around price, venue, and date. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reserve_listing, publish_listing, or report_stolen. The concrete example further reinforces the intended action.

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 usage context is implied: use this when a listing has actually sold and needs to be marked as such. It states a required OAuth scope, which is a precondition, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives such as reserve_listing for holds or report_stolen for theft.

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