Republish a hidden listing

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the listing was 'previously hidden' and returns it to the catalogue, offering some context on state transition. However, it does not detail what happens if the listing is already active, whether it becomes immediately visible, or any side effects such as search indexing.

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 one concise sentence that effectively communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

This is a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema. The description adequately conveys the main purpose and state change. It could mention edge cases (e.g., reactivating an already-active listing) but given the tool's simplicity and the idempotent annotation, the description is reasonably complete.

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 50%: country has a description, but itemId does not, and the description provides no additional meaning for itemId. It is self-evident that itemId identifies the listing, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation. Given coverage is below 50%, the tool description should have explained the parameters but does not.

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 the tool's function: bringing a previously hidden listing back into the catalogue. The verb 'brings back' and resource 'listing' provide a specific action, and the title 'Republish a hidden listing' reinforces the purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling publish_listing, but the mention of 'previously hidden' sets it apart from publishing a draft.

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 implies the tool is used when a listing was hidden (e.g., deactivated) and needs to be restored. However, it provides no explicit alternatives, conditions, or scenarios where this tool should not be used. Context from sibling tools (deactivate_listing, publish_listing) helps infer usage, but the description alone offers limited guidance.

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