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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does deliver the essentials: it is a WRITE operation, requires owner auth, and triggers a liveness probe against the registered endpoint. It stops short of stating whether an existing listing is overwritten, what happens if the probe fails, or whether the call is idempotent — meaningful gaps for a mutation that also performs network verification.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the required auth, with the 'one call' framing making the compound behavior obvious. The dense parentheticals ('visibility / pricing / payment link') trade a little readability for brevity but nothing is wasted.

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 10-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical calling context: auth, the central-vs-hosted branch, and the probe side effect. What an agent would still want — return shape or what a probe failure implies — is secondary but not fully addressed.

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%, so all ten parameters are already documented, including the endpoint-omission and negative-agentId conventions. The description restates those two rules but adds no new semantics for pricing, payment link, protocol default or tags, so baseline 3 applies.

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 pair (publish/update) and resource (listing) plus the endpoint registration side effect, which cleanly separates it from actora_listing_get, actora_listing_delist and actora_listing_price. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from scope rather than stated.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition (owner JWT access_token required) and a decision rule for the centralized-agent case (omit endpoint, negative agentId). It never says when to prefer this over actora_central_agent_update or actora_listing_price, so an agent must infer the boundary from the field list.

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