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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by enumerating the returned payload — moderation status, tick, scores, Pro perks, sponsorship, jobs and new-lead counts — which tells the agent what it will actually receive.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the returned scope and payload come first, then the routing hint. No filler, no repetition of 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 no parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the only real gap is the return shape — and the description compensates by listing the returned fields. Pagination and ordering behavior are unstated but minor for an owner-scoped list.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It uses the space instead to describe the output fields, which is a sensible use of a parameter-free schema.

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 resource plus its exact scope — listings 'this account owns or submitted' — which is precisely what separates it from get_listing and search_listings. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from, so differentiation is implied 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?

'Use first when the user refers to "my listing"' gives a clear trigger condition with an implied priority over alternatives. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g. use get_listing for a single listing by id), so routing still requires a little inference.

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