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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the two-phase confirm=false preview vs confirm=true create, the fact that a new listing is REVIEWED before going live, the listing_state values (live/in_review/not_accepted) with the critical warning that only 'live' means buyers see it, that tickets transfer only after an offer is accepted, and that auth is required. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the usage trigger, then layers the flow, state semantics, and the important 'live' caveat. Dense but every sentence carries actionable information 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 mutation tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the safety profile (auth required), the two-phase confirmation, the review lifecycle, and the result's listing_state semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters (baseline 3). The description adds real value by explaining the confirm preview/create interplay and the seat-detail read-back purpose, clarifying how section/row/seat inputs are meant to be surfaced to the user.

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 resource (creates a ticket listing on the XP marketplace) and anchors it with user-utterance examples ('sell my two seats', 'list section 104 row C'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the offer-handling siblings by naming accept_offer and reject_offer as the downstream step.

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 clear trigger conditions ('use when the user wants to sell tickets they hold') plus concrete example phrasings, and explains the seller's position in the flow. It does not explicitly exclude near-neighbor siblings like list_my_listings or cancel_my_listing, but the sell-side context is unambiguous.

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