List listings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further: it doesn't say whether results are paginated, what the default ('all'?) filter is, or how many listings are returned. For a simple read tool this is a minor gap, but zero added behavioral context keeps it low.

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?

One short sentence with the action and the filter front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse to be maximally informative, but nothing in it 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?

The tool is low-complexity, has no output schema to compensate for, and its annotations carry the safety profile, so the short description is roughly adequate. It still omits the default-status behavior and any sense of result scope, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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description coverage is 0%, but the single parameter is a fully self-documenting enum (draft, posted, reserved, sold, withdrawn, all). The description's 'by status' confirms the parameter's role without adding syntax or default-value semantics, which is the minimum viable for one enum param.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('List your listings') and adds the scoping dimension ('by status'), which distinguishes it from the mutating siblings create_listing/update_listing/post_listing. It stops short of naming a sibling or clarifying how it differs from deal_ledger-style retrieval tools, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as the listing-mutation siblings, and no indication of what the default behavior is when 'status' is omitted. The phrase 'by status' hints at filtering but never states the context or exclusions.

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