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

In the absence of annotations, the description details the behavioral trait of ranking based on 'heat (the 0-100 engagement score).' This adds crucial context about how the data is calculated beyond the simple list functions of sibling tools.

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 highly efficient. It is composed of three sentences, and the key information—ranking criteria and paid listing exclusion—is front-loaded for immediate agent understanding.

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 the tool's low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers the definition of the ranking mechanism and the crucial business rules regarding paid listings.

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?

Despite schema coverage being 67%, the description adds significant semantic value. It explicitly defines 'heat' as a '0-100 engagement score' and specifies that the results are measured over a 'rolling window,' enriching the context of the parameters beyond their basic types.

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 clearly defines the tool's purpose as listing 'Listings gaining momentum right now.' It explains that the listings are ranked based on metrics like heat, upvotes, or reviews, effectively distinguishing it from generic listing search tools.

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 provides a critical usage constraint by stating that paid listings do not have a ranking preference. It clarifies the role of the 'featured' flag, offering necessary context for usage that would otherwise be ambiguous.

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