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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It doesn't say whether this is a read-only listing operation, whether results are ordered, whether pagination exists, or what the response contains.

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?

It is a single short sentence with zero waste and the recency scope is front-loaded. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented 'limit' parameter, and several overlapping siblings, the description should do considerably more work. An agent cannot reliably decide between this and 'trending' or 'discover' from what is given.

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 50%: 'days' is documented but 'limit' has no description anywhere. The description does not compensate — it mentions recency but gives no detail on the lookback window default, bounds, or result-count behavior.

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 names the resource (listings) and the scope (most recently published), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it carries no verb and gives no basis for distinguishing this from siblings like 'trending' or 'discover', which likely also surface recent or noteworthy listings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'trending', 'search_listings', or 'discover'. The only implicit cue is recency, which the agent must infer from the name and description alone.

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