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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: taken-down or aged-out listings return only a status (taken_down/expired), and contact details plus the source ad link are deliberately withheld while the url opens the dorit.bot page. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior for an id that never existed.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler. The core payload (what the listing returns) is front-loaded, followed immediately by the degenerate-status case and the excluded fields. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden and does so well: it enumerates the returned fields and the reduced taken_down/expired shape. The only unaddressed case is an id that doesn't exist at all (error vs. empty response), which slightly limits completeness.

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% for the single listing_id parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning, positive-only constraint, and the dorit.bot/apartment/<id> lookup form. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Full details of one live Dorit listing,' then enumerates exactly what is returned (photos, features, move-in timing, timestamps, price history, liveness check). This clearly distinguishes it from the list-style sibling search_listings, which returns multiple listings rather than one listing's full record.

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 rather than stated: the reader infers you call this after search_listings has produced an id, and the schema description confirms that provenance. However, the description never explicitly says 'use this to drill into a single listing' or names search_listings as the entry point, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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