request_listing

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden, and it does so exceptionally. It discloses that nothing is published immediately, the request becomes a lead, a human reviews and contacts the business, and only then is anything set up. It also explains the async nature, email dependency, and that no timeline is promised.

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 description is compact yet information-dense, with the purpose front-loaded and every sentence contributing new information. It covers what, when, how, not-when, authorization, and return value without any fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite having no annotations or output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage conditions, async side effects, required contact method, authorization constraint, and return value (receipt with reference id). It also sets expectations about the lack of a timeline, making it effectively complete for a lead-submission tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning by explaining why contact_email is required ("the reply comes by email") and that contact_phone is optional. This helps an agent understand the intent behind the required and optional parameters beyond raw schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Ask G-Guest to list a business that is not on it yet." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling booking and query tools, and the following sentence names the exact business types (restaurant, cafe, bar, salon, spa, studio, clinic) it applies to.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when a business owner wants reservations that assistants can make. It also gives strong negative guidance: "Do not call it for a guest who merely wants to book somewhere, and never submit a business without its owner's or manager's say-so." This makes the trigger conditions and exclusions unambiguous.

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