create_listing

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It labels the tool as a 'guarded write', indicating mutation, but does not disclose details such as required permissions, potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens on submission vs preview. The stub note is about deployment, not behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and context (guarded write, hosted endpoint restriction). Every word is purposeful with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic write/validation purpose and deployment context. However, it lacks details on return values, error handling, and full behavioral coverage. Schema covers parameters well, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. It does not clarify how preview and dry_run interact or the structure of changes objects.

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 is for listing creation, with validation/submission options. It identifies it as a 'guarded write' and mentions hosted endpoint context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update_listing, which would benefit from a clearer contrast.

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 mentions the hosted endpoint restriction and local stub, giving deployment context but no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like update_listing or other creation tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria are provided.

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