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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one concrete failure mode: re-activating a listing awaiting eno's licence check returns `licence_check_required` until approval. It says nothing about required permissions, idempotency, whether setting 'sold' or 'hidden' has side effects on search/analytics, or what the response looks like.

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, zero filler, and the core action with its allowed values is front-loaded before the edge-case refusal.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the state values and one error path but leaves the identity of `id`, permission requirements, and return behavior unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate: it does add real meaning to `status` by naming the three legal values, but `id` is never characterized (assumed to be a listing id) and neither parameter's format or source is explained.

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 ('Set') plus resource ('a listing's availability') and enumerates the exact allowed states (active | sold | hidden), which lets an agent distinguish this from siblings like update_listing or delete_listing without opening the 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?

The description implies the tool is for changing availability state, but never states when to prefer it over update_listing, which plausibly also touches status. The only conditional given is a refusal case, not guidance on tool selection.

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