Claim Listing Ownership

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

The description explains the two-step nature and the side effect of token rotation on re-claiming. It goes beyond the annotations (all false) by detailing the process. However, it could mention failure modes or permission requirements for full transparency.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, and structured logically with step-by-step instructions. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description hints at receiving an owner_token but does not detail the full response format. It also omits error handling or validation details. For a moderate-complexity tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that product_id comes from 'discover results' and that verification_url is omitted on first call. This enriches the schema's parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: claiming ownership of an existing listing or recovering access. It uses specific verbs ('claim', 'recover') and names a resource ('listing in Sylex Search'), distinguishing it from siblings like manage.register or manage.update.

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 explicitly outlines the two-step process and when to include each parameter. It provides clear instructions for first and second calls. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives, which would be beneficial.

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