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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('View') and clarifies that it is for finding listings to cancel, not canceling them. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or whether cancelled/expired listings are included by default; the schema's status filter and limit parameter imply these, but the description alone is thin.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and purpose. It is concise without being under-specified, containing exactly the necessary information to distinguish the tool and its use cases.

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 list tool with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains its purpose and typical use cases. It could be slightly richer if it mentioned the response structure, but the 'fill status' reference and status parameter provide enough context for an agent to understand the output. The lack of annotations slightly reduces completeness, but the overall description is sufficient.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (limit default/max, status enum, agentId optional). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'View' and a clear resource 'your own resale listings', with explicit use cases: 'check fill status or find listings to cancel'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agentlux_resale_browse (browsing all listings) and agentlux_resale_inventory, and the 'your own' scope prevents confusion with other listing tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to check fill status or find listings to cancel. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the 'your own' scoping strongly implies it's for self-service listing management, differentiating it from marketplace browsing tools. There are no explicit when-not-to-use statements, so it doesn't reach the highest bar.

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