create_catalog_listing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'this is a real write operation' and spells out side effects (display and sales conditions change, free-shipping and price rules may differ). It also states return values. It omits whether the link can be reversed/unlinked, which is the main gap for a mutation of this kind.

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?

Front-loads the operation and its consequence in the first sentence, then compresses prerequisites and flow into tight follow-ups. Slightly dense with three separate concerns, but every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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?

Even without an output schema, it enumerates the return payload (linked item id, status, permalink) and covers prerequisites, side effects, and the recommended flow. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 100% and the schema already provides formats and examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds business semantics beyond the schema: item_id must belong to the authenticated seller, and catalog_product_id must match the item's catalog product.

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+resource: linking an EXISTING listing to a catalog product to opt it into catalog competition. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_item (new listing) and search_catalog/get_catalog_product (read-only catalog lookups) by emphasizing 'EXISTING'.

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?

Gives an explicit call flow (search_catalog → get_catalog_product → create_catalog_listing), prerequisites (item must belong to the authenticated seller and match the catalog product), and a human-in-the-loop requirement ('Confirm with the user before calling'). Nothing about when to use it is left to inference.

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