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

readOnlyHint already covers the non-mutating nature of the call. The description adds the meaningful qualifier 'public projection,' clarifying that the result is the public view of the listing. It does not discuss not-found or error behavior, but for a simple read-only tool the annotation plus this qualifier is sufficient.

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 definition is two tight sentences with the core operation first and the projection qualifier second. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant material.

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 single-parameter read with a readOnly annotation and no output schema, the description is almost complete: operation, resource, lookup key, and response projection are all stated. The missing piece is an explicit pointer to sibling tools when the agent lacks an id or needs a manifest, but that gap is secondary for invoking this tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'By id' maps to listing_id and the uuid format is already visible in the schema, but the description adds no further semantic detail such as value constraints or intended use of the id. It is minimal but workable for one 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('read a single listing by id') and matches the title, so an agent can tell it is a point-read rather than a search. It does not explicitly distinguish it from similarly named siblings like get_asset_manifest, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 statement about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_assets or the manifest getters. The only implied signal is 'by id,' which duplicates the required listing_id parameter rather than adding routing guidance.

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