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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds meaningfully beyond them: two distinct 404 outcomes (no_template vs not_found) and that the call is free with no payment or account required. It does not describe response size or caching, but the added error/auth context is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, then supporting detail about usage and error codes. The single long sentence with nested parentheses is dense but every clause earns its place; a small readability cost keeps it from a 5.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the return payload (output_schema plus optional verification and template_url), so an agent knows what to expect. Together with the error codes and auth-free note, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% with a single required parameter, so the schema already documents listing_id as a UUID from search_listings. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 verb+resource ('get a listing's full verification template') and enumerates the returned fields (output_schema, verification, template_url). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling build_template or get_listing, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Says it is most useful for a verification_profile listing but available on any listing with one, and directs the agent to pair it with the sibling verification service's POST /verify/schema. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the intended context is clear.

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