Relist one of your listings

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not readOnly, not destructive, not open-world); the description adds the meaningful behavioral constraint that only listings currently delisted or in a cancelled-sale state can be relisted, which is the main failure mode. It does not say whether relisting preserves the original listing_id/terms or what error surfaces if the state is wrong, so it is good but not complete.

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?

A single sentence with the action and eligibility conditions front-loaded and supporting detail in a parenthetical. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a one-parameter, non-destructive mutation with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the eligibility preconditions an agent needs before calling. It omits post-conditions (does the relist mint a new listing id, are fees re-charged?), but with no output schema and low complexity the definition is largely sufficient.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage and a pattern constraint, so the schema already does the work. The description adds only the ownership qualifier ("one of your own listings"), which is useful context but not syntax-level semantics; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Put one of your own listings back on the market") and scopes it to the agent's own listings, which separates it from get_listing/search_listings. It also enumerates the precise source states (delisted, or sold with a cancelled sale), so an agent can tell exactly which listings qualify.

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 gives clear triggering context: use this when a listing is delisted or when a sale was cancelled by the seller or at the dispatch deadline. It stops short of explicitly naming the inverse tool (delist_listing) or stating what to do when the listing is in another state, so there is no explicit when-not/alternative routing.

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