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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses automatic image re-hosting, that a `price` sent for a job is reinterpreted as a VND monthly salary, and that edits on a licence-pending listing return `held: true` and stay unpublished. It does not cover permission requirements, error cases, or whether unmentioned fields are preserved, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

The most important constraint (sparse edit) is front-loaded, and the sentences are dense and largely free of filler. The parenthetical asides make it slightly telegraphic, but nothing 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 8 parameters at 13% description coverage, the description covers the key behavioral and field-mapping caveats. It still leaves gaps around permissions, the shape of a non-held response, and the meaning of several free-text fields.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the price/salaryM relationship and image URL handling. But most parameters (id, title, district, condition, description) receive no added semantics, and `condition` and `district` in particular remain ambiguous.

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?

"Edit one of the shop's listings (sparse)" gives a clear verb plus resource and signals partial-update semantics, which cleanly separates it from create_listing/delete_listing in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with set_listing_status or update_shop, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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 "(sparse)" marker implies this is for partial field changes rather than full replacement, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over set_listing_status for publication changes, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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