analyze_listing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — changes nothing.' It adds extensive behavioral details about what checks are performed (e.g., origin protection, status codes, uptime) and the output format (prioritized punch list with evidence and fix pointer), far exceeding annotation requirements.

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 moderately concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists checks, states read-only, adds usage advice, and ends with a requirement. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains return values: 'prioritized punch list (HIGH/MED/LOW findings with evidence and a fix pointer).' It also covers the scope of checks and prerequisites, making it complete for a tool with no required parameters and no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds moderate value by explaining the context of each parameter: 'Omit when the account has exactly one workspace' for tenant_id and 'Audit a single endpoint instead of the whole listing' for endpoint_id, providing usage guidance beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Audit a bolthub listing you own against the seller-guide rubric and get a prioritized punch list'. It uses a specific verb (audit) and resource (listing), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'useful before publish_listing'.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Useful before publish_listing and any time revenue looks off.' It also specifies a prerequisite: 'Requires BOLTHUB_ACCOUNT_TOKEN.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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