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

Annotations only declare the write/non-destructive/non-idempotent shape; the description adds two things they don't cover: the required listings:write scope and the external DNS propagation lag that can cause transient failures. It does not describe what happens when the token is missing, leaving the failure path implicit.

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: the action and outcome, the timing caveat, and the permission requirement. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the action, precondition, auth scope, and timing caveat. The only gap is the failure behavior when the token is absent, which the output schema may partially address.

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 100% and the single productId parameter is already documented as the listing's id, so the description adds nothing about parameters. This meets the baseline for a fully-covered schema rather than exceeding it.

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 and outcome: it checks that the token from start_ownership_check is present and, if so, marks the person as the listing's verified owner. The dependency on start_ownership_check makes the division of labor with that sibling clear, though it never names alternatives explicitly.

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 establishes sequencing (this tool runs after start_ownership_check) and adds practical timing guidance that DNS propagation can take a few minutes before verification will succeed. It stops short of stating what to do on failure or how often to retry.

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