validate_listing_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool validates text lengths and returns a validation result with errors. It does not contradict any annotations, and the behavior (non-destructive, no side effects) is effectively communicated, though it could explicitly state that no data is modified.

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 very concise: a single opening sentence, followed by a structured Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence is informative, and the main purpose is front-loaded. No redundant or missing 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?

For a simple validation tool, the description fully covers purpose, parameters with constraints, and the return value (validation result with errors). Given the presence of an output schema (context signals), this description is complete and leaves no critical 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by providing explicit character limits for each parameter (title: max 50, short_description: max 80, full_description: max 4000), adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 'Validate store listing text lengths before updating', specifying the verb (validate), resource (store listing text), and purpose (check lengths). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_listing (which actually updates) and validate_package_name (which validates a different resource).

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 phrase 'before updating' implies that this tool should be used prior to update_listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention of alternatives. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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