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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Replace' implies a destructive overwrite, but the description does not state what gets destroyed, whether omitted fields are cleared, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. The extra warnings about reconfirmation and dates are too ambiguous to compensate.

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 short and front-loads the core action, but the second and third sentences are confusing and repetitive ('Reconfirm only after checking the actual information' / 'Do not refresh dates without an actual check'). They add ambiguity rather than clarity, though the overall length is reasonable.

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 13 parameters, 8 required fields, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the provided text alone; critical details about required fields, replacement semantics, and error conditions are 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?

There are 13 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description only contextualizes one parameter ('current expectedVersion') and provides no meaning for the other 12, including required fields like attestRights, category, name, summary, description, and website. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 says 'Replace your listing using its current expectedVersion', which identifies the verb (replace) and resource (listing) and hints at concurrency control. However, 'Reconfirm only after checking the actual information' and 'Do not refresh dates without an actual check' are vague and do not clarify whether this is a full replacement or partial update. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_listing or publish_listing.

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 offers only cryptic cautions ('reconfirm only after checking the actual information', 'do not refresh dates without an actual check') rather than clear when-to-use guidance. It does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over get_listing or publish_listing, nor does it explain prerequisites such as obtaining the current expectedVersion via a read.

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