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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the 5-item cap, order preservation between input and output, and the partial-failure shape ({ error } only for failed items). It stops short of stating whether the operation is read-only or what a successful element looks like beyond deferring to resolve_listing.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, when to use it, what comes back, and the two boundary cases (over 5, exactly 1). Front-loaded and waste-free.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain returns — it does, covering ordering and the error-element shape while deferring success-element format to resolve_listing. Adequate for correct invocation, though the success-element structure is only implied by reference.

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% and the single array parameter is fully documented down to per-field descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's note that results align to input order and that more than 5 must be chunked adds operational meaning, but 'same arguments as resolve_listing' repeats what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific action (batch-execute resolve_listing) with an explicit bound (max 5) and explicitly differentiates from the single-item sibling. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is versus resolve_listing without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (querying many listings at once), an explicit fallback for the single-item case (use resolve_listing), and an explicit overflow rule (split into groups of 5 and call multiple times). No inference required.

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