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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a meaningful auth-related requirement ('Requires a token') and clarifies that no submission occurs, which aligns with the read-only annotation. No contradictions found.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words: the first front-loads the action and scope, and the second adds a necessary precondition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with rich annotations, the definition is mostly adequate, but it lacks any mention of what the tool returns or what a 'preview' actually provides. There is no output schema, so the description should compensate, but it does not describe the result of calling this tool. The token requirement is mentioned but not elaborated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never explains what 'url' refers to or how it relates to the listing being previewed. The parameter name and format are self-evident, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema. It also introduces a token requirement that is absent from the input schema, which could confuse the agent about the expected input.

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 uses a specific verb ('draft') and resource ('a listing'), and explicitly contrasts with 'without submitting it', which distinguishes this tool from the sibling submit_product. The title 'Preview a listing' reinforces the action. An agent can tell what this tool does and what it deliberately avoids.

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 phrase 'without submitting it' provides clear context that this is a dry-run or preview action rather than a publication action. It implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions beyond not submitting. A small but useful gap.

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