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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes that opening a listing is recorded as deliberate interest (a side effect) and that the artifact arrives only after payment. This adds meaningful context beyond the simple 'get' operation, though it doesn't cover error cases or authentication.

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 short paragraphs with front-loaded purpose. The first sentence is clear and specific; the second and third sentences add essential behavioral details (payment timing, recorded interest). No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values don't need elaboration. The description covers core purpose, the side effect, and the payment timing. However, the unmentioned agent_id parameter is a notable gap. For a simple two-parameter tool, it is mostly complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. While 'one listing' implies listing_id, the agent_id parameter is completely unexplained. The description adds minimal value for one parameter but leaves the other entirely undocumented.

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 explicitly states it returns full public details for one listing, listing concrete fields (price, verification, bond, refund window, seller record, URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like market_stats (aggregate stats) and search_solved (search-focused).

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?

Usage is implied: you use this when you need detailed information for a specific listing. However, there are no explicit statements about when to use it versus alternatives like search_solved or standing_demand, nor any when-not-to-use guidance.

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