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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: an owner sees their own listing even when it is pending or hidden, which implies visibility varies by caller identity. It does not mention auth requirements or the retry/api_pass semantics.

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 very short sentences with no waste and the resource identity front-loaded. The terseness is nearly cryptic ('One listing's page' reads more like a fragment than a full statement), which keeps it just short of exemplary.

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 should say what a 'page' returns, and it doesn't; the unusual MAT-only api_pass acquisition flow is left entirely to the schema. The owner-visibility note partially compensates for a simple single-fetch tool, but key expectations remain unstated.

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 id, api_pass, and retry_key thoroughly (including provenance and format). The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, but it earns no bonus.

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 specific resource ('One listing's page'), which distinguishes it from the list-shaped siblings like list_listings and search-like feed tools. The verb is implicit ('get' is carried by the name/title) but the singular scope is clear. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing vs alternatives such as listing_status, listing_history, or get_listing_readme, all of which plausibly answer questions about a single listing. The visibility sentence hints at an owner-scenario but never frames it as a selection criterion.

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