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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the underlying GET endpoint and framing the result as what 'Graunt's API gives it,' but it does not describe return shape, auth, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and endpoint, followed immediately by the alternative. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete: it states the operation, endpoint, and when to prefer a sibling. It could say more about the raw response or error cases, but the core invocation context is present.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does clarify that the tool takes a listing id and locates it in the endpoint path, but it does not explain the UUID format, where to obtain the id, or any constraints beyond what the parameter name already implies.

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 verb and resource ('Read one listing by id') and identifies the exact API endpoint ('GET /v1/listings/{id}'). It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'fetch' by contrasting raw API retrieval with answering or citing questions.

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?

It gives a clear alternative-condition rule: use 'fetch' to answer a question from a listing or cite it. The implied use case for this tool is raw retrieval by id, but the description does not explicitly state when not to use it versus other sibling search tools.

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