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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: price and seller wallet are immutable, mutability varies by good type, and the bearer secret must go in the Authorization header rather than in arguments. The auth-transport requirement in particular is not derivable from any structured field.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: eligibility, mutation rules, then auth transport. The most decision-relevant constraint (pre-first-purchase) is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

For a destructive, idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers eligibility, per-type field rules, and authentication transport. It omits what a successful or failed edit returns and whether the edit is reversible, which is a minor gap given the annotations already flag destructiveness.

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 only 29%, so the description must carry weight, and it does: it enumerates which fields are mutable for free goods (title, artifact) versus priced goods (description, preview, tags, aisle), a conditional rule present nowhere in the schema. Only 'id' and the fact that tags/aisle are array/enum types go unaddressed, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Specific verb (Edit) + resource (one of your live listings) with an explicit scope constraint ('before its first purchase'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_item, remove_listing, and withdraw_item, which an agent can rule out without opening a 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?

The 'before its first purchase' precondition tells the agent when this tool is applicable, and the free-vs-priced field rules tell it what can be edited. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., remove_listing or withdraw_item for post-purchase cases), so the routing is clear but not fully explicit.

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