Check listing text

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it documents the return contents and explains that supplying optional identifiers triggers disclosure verification instead of deferring to manual review. This gives an agent a good sense of what will happen when it invokes the tool.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, the second explains the output, and the third clarifies the optional-parameter behavior. No sentence 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?

Given the high schema coverage, the presence of an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context well. It explains what results look like and how optional context improves the check, though it could additionally mention how this tool relates to get_receipt or when a previously generated receipt should be used instead.

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 all six parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the functional impact of the optional identifiers—brokerage, licensee, and license_id—enabling verification of disclosure elements rather than deferring them. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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—'Run listing text through the compliance rule engine'—and then distinguishes the tool by explaining it returns fired rules, the statute behind each, and missing required elements. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like explain_rule and suggest_rewrite.

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 provides clear context: use this when you need to check listing text against the compliance rule engine before publication. It also explains how adding brokerage, licensee, and license_id affects the check, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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