mma_import_listing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that extraction is 'quarantined' (implying safety), that it returns a draft and a gapReport, and that publishing is done from the console (not via this tool). It also states the auth scope requirement. This is good behavioral disclosure for a tool with no annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. It covers the workflow, the return value, and the auth requirement without waste.

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?

The tool has an output schema (which likely describes the draft and gapReport), so the description doesn't need to detail return values. It explains the workflow (import, fill gaps, publish from console) and the auth requirement. It could mention what 'quarantined' means in terms of behavior, but overall it's complete for a tool with an 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the context that these are alternatives ('or') and that they are for importing a draft, but doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Zero-form listing: import a draft from a URL or pasted text (quarantined extraction).' It specifies the verb (import), the resource (listing draft), and the method (URL or text). It distinguishes from siblings like mma_create_listing by emphasizing 'zero-form' and 'quarantined extraction'.

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 context on when to use: 'import a draft from a URL or pasted text' and mentions the workflow: 'fill the gaps, then publish from the console.' It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough. It also mentions the API key requirement, which is a prerequisite.

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