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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral nuance: the paid/unpaid behavior, the per-photo and per-surface disclosure generation, and the legal duty of the licensee. It also clarifies the output contents beyond what annotations imply, without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded: it starts with 'Everything a paid listing returns' and lists the three key components. It adds necessary condition and behavior without fluff. The note about duty is slightly extra but relevant. Overall, every sentence contributes.

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?

Given it has one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, the required condition, and the behavior for unsatisfied condition. It also mentions the disclosure responsibility, which is important context. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter (listing_id), and the schema provides a clear description with pattern and example. The description does not add extra parameter details, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the tool description doesn't need to compensate.

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 states a clear verb ('get') and resource ('listing pack'), and explicitly enumerates what it returns: download link, disclosure wording, and public page. It distinguishes itself from siblings like duskly_get_checkout_url and duskly_generate_disclosure by clarifying it bundles the full set of deliverables for a paid 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 gives a clear precondition ('Requires the listing to have been paid for') and explains the fallback behavior for unpaid listings (returns checkout URL). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, it conveys when this tool is appropriate and what happens otherwise, which is sufficient guidance for an agent to decide.

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