get_listing_restrictions

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

The description discloses that the tool is a read operation (implying no destructive side effects) and importantly notes that it is an introspection stub, meaning the local stdio server does not host the actual endpoint. However, it does not explain what the stub returns, permissions required, or any rate limits. Given no annotations, the description partially carries the burden but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences: one for purpose and one for the stub note. It is front-loaded and devoid of fluff.

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 has no output schema, and the description does not describe the return format or content. Additionally, while it notes the stub nature, it doesn't clarify what happens when called locally (e.g., returns empty array or error). For a tool with 7 optional parameters and no required ones, more context about what data to expect is needed.

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 provides full descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so it provides no extra value. Baseline at 3 is appropriate.

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 as a read operation for listing restrictions and approvals, using the prefix "[Inventory / direct API read]". This distinguishes it from many sibling tools that are archive/create/update operations. However, the mention of "introspection stub" slightly muddles the purpose of the local instance.

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 only states the tool's purpose and that it's a stub; it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other similar "get_" tools like get_listing_quality or get_listing_registry. There are no exclusions or contextual cues for selection.

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