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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses the concrete effect: 'Creates nothing — no account, no draft, nothing is published; the owner signs in and builds the listing themselves.' That resolves the most likely agent misconception, namely that this tool initiates a draft or account, and it tells the caller the return value is a link.

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?

It is front-loaded with the audience and effect, and the negative clause 'Creates nothing' lands early where it matters. Minor waste remains in the vague promise of 'what they will need', which is never specified and adds length without information.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly sufficient: it names the return value, denies side effects, and routes to the alternative. It stops short of saying anything about the link itself (e.g., whether it is shareable, personal, or expiring), which would matter for an agent relaying it to an owner.

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% with an enum and per-value description, so the schema already carries the meaning of 'intent'. The description only echoes the sell/let framing ('for sale or to let') without adding syntax or defaulting detail, so it neither compensates nor detracts — 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('returns the link that starts the listing wizard') and pins the audience ('an owner who wants to advertise their own property for sale or to let on OpenMoov without an estate agent'). It also explicitly differentiates itself from a named sibling, request_valuation, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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?

It states the positive condition (self-listing owner, no agent) and the exclusion with the alternative ('If they would rather use an estate agent, use request_valuation instead'). No inference is required to pick between the two.

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