Validate a draft against the real Leboncoin form

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by detailing the tool's exact behavior: opening the browser, filling the form, uploading photos, and reporting publishability. It adds critical safety guarantees (no failure mode can result in a public ad), explains the `readyToPublish` semantics, and warns about photo count mismatches. Annotations only cover read-only/destructive hints, so this rich behavioral context is entirely complementary.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose and safety note, then expands into key behavioral details like `readyToPublish` and photo upload. Every sentence adds value; nothing is redundant. Use of bold and precise language enhances readability without padding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (browser automation, photo upload, validation) and lack of output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it works, safety, success criteria, and a critical warning about photo uploads. It is fully self-contained for an agent to understand the tool's role and boundary.

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 schema covers `screenshot` with a description, and `draftId` is self-evident from context. The description adds meaning by explaining how the draft is used and clarifies the photo upload aspect, but does not explicitly detail the parameters themselves. Given the 50% schema coverage, the description compensates sufficiently without overexplaining.

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 explicitly states the tool validates a draft against the live Leboncoin form, clearly distinguishing it from publication ('It cannot publish') and other draft-related tools. The verb 'validate' and specific resource 'a draft against the real Leboncoin form' provide immediate clarity on function and scope.

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 direct guidance on when to use the tool ('run it before asking the user for permission to publish') and explains its role as a safe pre-publication check. It also implies the alternative (publish_listing) by contrast, making usage context explicit without extra verbiage.

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