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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'One listing's page.' and does not mention read-only behavior, return format, error cases, or any side effects. This adds little beyond what the tool name implies.

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 very short and front-loaded, but brevity crosses into under-specification. 'One listing's page.' does not earn its place as a complete definition because it omits necessary behavioral and usage context.

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 simple one-parameter tool this is partially adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at least indicate what the page contains or how the result is returned. It does not, leaving an agent with only the bare resource name.

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%, and the schema clearly documents 'id' as the Listing ID from 'Anuncio.id'. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema already carries the full burden, so a baseline 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?

The description 'One listing's page.' identifies the resource (a single listing) and implies retrieval, but uses no explicit verb and is nearly a paraphrase of the tool name. It does not distinguish get_listing from siblings like go_listing or list_listings beyond the singular scope.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus create_listing, list_listings, go_listing, or like_listing. Usage is only implied by the name and the required 'id' parameter, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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