upgrade_listing

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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false); the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: the `paid` path returns a Dodo checkout URL carrying the submission id, payment is verified server-side by a webhook, and the tool does not publish or self-grant dofollow status. These are real operational facts an agent needs, not restatements of the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and enumerations, then the paid-path mechanics, then the single important exclusion. Every sentence carries information, though the internal jargon (Dodo webhook, dofollow) assumes domain familiarity.

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?

With no output schema and full schema coverage, the description responsibly discloses the return of the `paid` path (a checkout URL) and the external verification flow. It leaves the response shape for the sayabout/badge paths unspecified and does not state that an existing upgrade request may be reused, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains path, slug, submissionId, and verificationUrl. The description mostly echoes the schema (paid returns a Dodo URL, sayabout/badge need a Wall of Love URL) rather than adding new syntax or constraint details, so it neither elevates nor diminishes parameter understanding.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Choose how a listing you own earns a dofollow link') and enumerates the three concrete paths (sayabout, badge, paid) that define the operation. The closing sentence 'Nothing publishes or self-grants dofollow here' distinguishes it from publish-oriented siblings like submit_tool without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

It clearly states the context of use (a listing you own, choosing an earning path) and identifies when the `paid` variant applies versus the verification-based variants. It stops short of naming sibling tools as alternatives or stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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