List Locale Coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implicitly conveys a read-only inspection behavior and the comparison against target locales, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or describe output structure beyond what the output schema already covers.

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 a single, economically worded sentence with no filler. It is slightly fragmentary, reading as a question rather than a declarative statement, but it effectively front-loads the core purpose.

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 tool's simplicity, fully documented parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The main missing context is explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over listing-related siblings, which is already captured in the usage_guidelines score.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters comprehensively (100% coverage). The description adds the concept of 'targets' which maps to target_locales, but it does not materially enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: reporting which locales have store listings and which target locales are missing. It is specific to locale coverage and distinct from sibling tools like list_all_listings, though it lacks an explicit action verb in the description itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as get_listing, list_all_listings, or clone_listing_to_locale, nor any conditions that should trigger its use.

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