Score an Etsy listing

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the return shape ('blockers and the top 5 fixes') and the grading scale/grade mapping, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the score/grade outcome and then lists criteria, followed by a short sentence on returns. It is long but every clause adds a distinct criterion, so little is wasted.

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, the description does the work of explaining the return ('blockers and the top 5 fixes') and the scale, and it enumerates the scoring dimensions. It is nearly complete for an 8-parameter read-only tool, with only the price/digital/keywords inputs left unexplained.

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 only 13% across 8 parameters, so the description has to carry meaning. It maps evaluation criteria to several params (title, 13 tags ≤20 chars multi-word, description structure/disclosure, photos and video), but price, digital and keywords are never explained in the description, leaving real gaps.

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 ('Score a listing 0–100 (grade A–F) against Etsy best practices') and enumerates the exact dimensions being graded, which makes it unmistakably distinct from the generate_*/suggest_* siblings that produce content rather than audit it.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'score' versus the sibling generators, so an agent can infer this is the audit path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when a listing should be scored versus regenerated, and no reference to any sibling by name.

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