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

Annotations already declare it non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond them: scores are recomputed 'from its current record' (no external fetch) and the operation requires explicit user confirmation before taking effect. The confirmation detail partially overlaps the schema's token explanation, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded with the score types, then the confirmation prerequisite. Every clause earns its place 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 low-complexity two-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, data source, and the confirmation gate, and annotations cover the safety profile. It could have noted what the first call returns (action_summary/token) or that results are stable across repeats, but those gaps are minor.

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%, so both 'listing' and 'confirmation_token' are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the ownership constraint ('one of the user's listings') but adds no format, syntax, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 ('Recompute') and resource ('confidence, health and completeness scores of one of the user's listings') and ties it to the dashboard label 'Re-align scores', which clearly separates it from refresh_listing_news and refresh_listing_tech. It stops short of naming or contrasting those siblings explicitly, so it misses the top band.

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 prerequisite 'Requires the user's confirmation' is stated, and the schema documents the two-step confirmation flow. However, there is no guidance on when this tool is preferable to alternatives like refresh_listing_news/tech or the other prepare_* siblings, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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