Generate listing options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuinely new context beyond them by disclosing the replacement of prior options and that execution is asynchronous (background job), which materially changes calling behaviour. It stops short of covering runtime expectations, whether an AI provider must be configured first, or failure modes. Minor tension: 'replaces previous options' reads slightly destructive against destructiveHint=false, though the non-idempotent hint is consistent with regeneration.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its output, followed by the side effect and the next step. Every clause (scouting, artifact list, scoring, replacement, async, follow-up read) carries information an agent needs; nothing is 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?

For a non-read-only, open-world background job with no output schema, the description covers what is generated, what gets replaced and where to look for results (get_optimizer). It does not mention whether to use wait_for_jobs to await completion or whether an AI provider must be set via set_ai_provider first, which are the remaining gaps for an async tool in this toolset.

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 projectId, locale, ai and directions are already documented in structured data, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces that the locale is the 'main listing locale' and that keywords come from the project's board, but adds no format, default or constraint detail for the optional directions or ai provider parameters.

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 (start) and resource (listing optimizer) for a named scope (a project), then enumerates exactly what is produced: AI-written listing options with title, subtitle, keyword field and description, scored for reach and difficulty. The phrase 'scouts the board's keywords in the main locale' further pins down the input side, so an agent can tell this apart from optimizer_more_options or optimizer_choose without opening the 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?

Gives clear operating context: it is a background job and the follow-up step is explicitly 'then read get_optimizer', which routes the agent correctly after invocation. 'Replaces previous options' implicitly warns against calling it when existing options must be preserved, but it never names optimizer_more_options as the non-destructive alternative for adding options, so the sibling comparison is left to inference.

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