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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context with 'public details' and 'published listing', implying non-public fields are excluded and unpublished listings are not retrievable, but it says nothing about not-found behavior or result shape.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this is close to sufficient: scope, identifier form, and public/published visibility are all stated. The remaining gap is disambiguation from get_listing_schema, which the description never addresses.

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 carries the burden; 'by slug or id' does clarify that the single opaque string parameter accepts either identifier form, which the bare schema does not convey. It stops short of giving format examples or saying what happens if both interpretations are ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource ('full public details of one published listing') and pins the scope to a single item by slug or id, which distinguishes it from the plural search_listings. It does not, however, distinguish it from the sibling get_listing_schema, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied: read this when you already have a slug or id for a published listing. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of search_listings as the alternative for discovery vs. retrieval, and no pointer to get_listing_schema for schema-related needs.

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