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

The annotations already declare write, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: the 25-listing cap for non-Pro accounts (including hidden listings), the connected-account prerequisite, and the catalog:write OAuth scope. The remaining gap is that failure behavior and the cost of hitting the tier limit are not described.

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?

Five short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and each sentence carrying distinct information (privacy flag, idempotency key, auth, limits). The closing "Account tier limits apply" is mildly redundant with the earlier 25-listing sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers auth, quota, and idempotency well. However, for a 7-parameter create call with zero schema-level parameter descriptions, leaving five fields undefined is a meaningful completeness 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains only hidden and requestId (including the non-obvious retry semantics); title, price, description, privateNote, and cultivarReferenceId get no meaning, format, or constraint guidance at all.

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?

"Create one listing" gives a specific verb and resource, and the singular framing distinguishes it from the sibling create_list (a different resource) and update_listing. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the resource-level distinction is clear enough to pick correctly.

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 concrete operational guidance: use hidden=true for private drafts versus hidden=false to publish, and reuse requestId when retrying the same creation. It does not cover when to prefer update_listing over recreating, but the create-vs-retry context is well specified.

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