validate_listing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (score 0-100, issue list with error/warning, ready-to-publish flag with threshold >=70) and the scope of validation. Although it does not explicitly state side-effect behavior, the nature of validation implies a read-only operation, and the return details provide meaningful behavioral 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise summary of the output. It avoids redundancy and every sentence carries meaningful information.

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 complexity (nested objects, multiple validation dimensions) and the absence of output schema and annotations, the description provides a solid overview. It details the output structure and scoring threshold, but omits details about the rules parameter and the exact issue object format, leaving some gaps.

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 coverage is 50%, with only the listing parameter described. The description adds context by listing validation criteria (image, schema.org, etc.) which map to the rules booleans, but it does not explain the rules parameter or its sub-fields. The rules object's purpose and configurability are not mentioned, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 specific verb (Valida) and resource (produto/listing) with the purpose of storefront publication. It enumerates the validation dimensions (title, description, image, required attributes, schema.org JSON-LD, on-page SEO), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on enrichment, image search, or payload preparation.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to validate completeness before publishing to a storefront. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the publication context makes the appropriate usage evident and distinct from sibling tools like enrich_product or prepare_shopify_payload.

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