publish_listing

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true; the description aligns by framing this as a state-changing publication and adds real context: the listing becomes publicly visible only after a content scan, and acceptance of Open Use terms grants commercial use, modification, redistribution and model training without attribution. It does not address reversibility or unpublishing, which is the main remaining gap for a destructive action.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and then the prerequisite chain; every sentence carries a fact. It is dense and slightly long, but none of the content is filler, so it stops short of a 5 only on tightness.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, required legal acceptance, licensing implications and the post-publish scan. It omits what happens on failure or how long the scan takes, but nothing essential for a correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents dataset_id, tos_confirmed and listing_terms_version in detail. The description echoes the terms-acceptance semantics and adds a non-parameter requirement (documentation.source_name), but contributes little beyond what the parameter descriptions state, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish a draft listing to the marketplace') and names the prerequisite siblings that must have run first (get_upload_urls, confirm_upload, get_listing_status), so it is distinguishable from create_listing and update_listing without opening 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?

Explicit preconditions are enumerated: full dataset uploaded, sample generation complete, owner verification, and documentation.source_name present. It also states the required acceptance of listing terms and the alternative licensing case ('without custom terms, Open Use allows...'), which is exactly the when/when-not detail an agent needs.

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