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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get the full details' implies a safe read and signals that the return is a complete record rather than a summary, but there is no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior on an unknown listing_id.

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?

A single sentence with the operation front-loaded and no wasted clauses. Every element (one listing, by id, source of the id) earns its place.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, this covers origin and scope adequately. The only gap is that 'full details' is not fleshed out at all, leaving the agent unaware of what fields to expect.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents listing_id as coming from search_listings with an example value. The description restates that origin but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint information beyond the schema.

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 ('Get the full details of one JIR Ventures property listing') and scopes it to a single record via listing_id. Referencing search_listings as the source of the id distinguishes it from that sibling without needing the schema.

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 clearly places the tool in a workflow: use it after search_listings, passing an id that search returned. It does not address the other sibling (request_viewing) or state when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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