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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions a side effect ('counts a visit') and implies a redirect, but it does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it follows the redirect, or any authentication or error implications. This is minimal transparency.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and side effect. However, the terseness contributes to ambiguity, so it is not a perfect score.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what happens after the hop and what the caller receives. It does not. The cryptic '302 hop' plus lack of return value or side-effect detail leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with a description for 'id' ('ID of the listing to visit'). The tool description adds 'to the listing's origin' which clarifies the destination, but it does not explain what 'origin' means or how it differs from a plain listing visit. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter.

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 action ('302 hop') and a resource ('listing's origin'), and notes it counts a visit. It is not a tautology and hints at a distinct purpose, but the technical jargon ('302 hop') is unclear to an agent without web knowledge, and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling listing tools like get_listing or like_listing.

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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The agent is left to infer that 'hopping' is different from 'getting' or 'liking', but no explicit conditions or alternatives are provided.

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