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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavior beyond that: it indicates the response includes the full listing with its description, but it does not explain behavior for missing slugs, error handling, or data freshness.

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 extremely short and front-loaded: 'One listing in full, including its description.' It wastes no words, though it is more of a fragment than a complete sentence. It earns points for efficiency but loses some because it omits useful 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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool, and the description conveys the core return concept ('in full, including description'). However, with no output schema, no usage guidance, and no explanation of the slug parameter, the description is only minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented 'slug' parameter, but it does not. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, yet the tool description provides no guidance on what a slug is, where to find it, or formatting expectations.

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 title states the verb/resource ('Get one listing') and the description adds that it returns the listing 'in full, including its description,' which is clear and distinct from a search or aggregate operation. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but 'one listing' vs 'search_listings' and 'find_buildings' makes the purpose reasonably unambiguous.

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 search_listings, find_buildings, or market_stats. The phrase 'One listing in full' implies a use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.

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