1233.chat

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, so the description adds value beyond them by specifying the returned content (price, details, photos, link) and the 'active' constraint on listings. There is no contradiction with readOnlyHint=true.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and scope. The parenthetical field list is compact and informative without being redundant.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with a full output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned and the field scope, while the schema covers the parameter. No additional behavioral detail is needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with listing_id already documented as coming from search_listings results. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so it earns the baseline 3 for relying on a complete schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Возвращает' with a clear resource: the full description of an active 1233.chat listing, including price, details, photos, and link. This sharply distinguishes get_listing from the sibling search_listings, which searches rather than retrieves a single listing's full details.

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 intended usage is implied: this tool retrieves a full listing by ID, and the parameter description states the ID comes from search_listings results. However, the description itself never explicitly says when to use it versus search_listings, nor does it mention exclusions such as inactive listings being unretrievable despite saying 'active'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and there is no contradiction. The description adds useful context about searching only active listings in Bishkek, but it does not disclose response behavior, pagination, sorting, or any special constraints. With read-only safety covered by annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler: it states the verb, the resource, the location, and the main categories. Every part earns its place.

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 zero required parameters, full schema descriptions, a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema present, the description is largely complete for correct invocation. The main missing piece is sibling-routing context, but that gap is already penalized under usage guidelines.

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 all five parameters already have meaningful Russian descriptions, including the kind enum values, limit bounds, query behavior, and price filters. The description adds little beyond the schema, apart from aligning the kind values with 'товары, услуги и заявки'.

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 uses a specific verb 'Ищет' and names the resource: active listings on 1233.chat in Bishkek, covering products, services, and service requests. It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_listing, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus get_listing, and no exclusions or alternative routing. The description only implies that this is the general search tool, which is not enough for an agent to confidently choose between search_listings and get_listing.

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