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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral substance the annotations cannot: the response includes allowed values, units, suggestions, and which attributes are mandatory — exactly what an agent needs to plan a listing write.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the payload enumeration and the usage cue. It borders on a run-on through the parenthetical list, but no sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so at a useful level (hierarchy, subcategories, attribute values/units/suggestions/requiredness). Only the shape of the nested attribute structure remains unstated, a minor gap for a 2-parameter read tool.

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%, with both the category slug source and the country-specific real-estate rules documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already says.

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 (one category) and enumerates the exact payload: hierarchy placement, subcategories, and attributes with allowed values, units, suggestions and required flags. This clearly distinguishes it from list_categories (which yields the slug) and get_listing (which consumes attributes).

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 concrete when-to-use context: call before create_listing, and use it to search by attributes. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives among the declared siblings are offered, which keeps it short of a 5.

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