list_tracked_listings

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds non-obvious behavior: removed listings are hidden unless include_removed is true, paging bounds, and the invariant that these listings keep shipping as-is and are not editable. It does not mention auth/workspace scoping nuances beyond the schema field, so a 4 rather than 5.

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-loaded with what the tool returns, then scope, then the critical caveat, then paging. Dense and mostly earns its length, though the trailing '[#ab1488]' artifact is noise and the sentence about shipping as today is slightly redundant with the preceding caveat.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (import state catalog_read/last_run, channel_status values, SKUs, variants, image_url, product_uuid) and notes paging defaults. For a 7-parameter read tool this is effectively the missing output documentation.

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 baseline is 3; the description nevertheless adds conceptual meaning to scope ('what they sold before ApparelHub' vs ApparelHub-made) and to include_removed ('gone from the channel'). It does not interpret limit/offset beyond the schema, but the added semantics for the enum parameter justify above baseline.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('tracked listings imported from a store's sales channels'), plus explicit scope of what a listing contains and a sharp negative definition ('TRACKED LISTINGS ARE NOT APPARELHUB PRODUCTS'). The agent can distinguish this from list_my_products or listing_changes without opening a 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?

Gives clear usage conditions: scope values are enumerated with meaning, include_removed is explained, and the description states the important when-not ('you cannot sync, price-cascade, edit or fulfil them through ApparelHub'). It does not name the specific alternative tools (e.g. sync_to_channel, cascade_price_change) that should be used instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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