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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates what is returned (address, boundary-found flag, render status, shareable links, live_url), explains that non-LIVE lots get a watermarked preview, and warns that sample lots return sample: true with no asking_price. It omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior for an unknown id, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the core lookup statement, then the return contents, then the watermark and sample-lot caveats in order of likely relevance. It is a touch long, and the sample-lot example id (f2c2bcc732) is slightly redundant with the schema example, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values itself — and it does, covering address, boundary status, render status, links, LIVE/live_url, watermark behavior, and the sample-lot shape. For a one-parameter lookup this is complete enough to call and interpret 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 100% for the single listing_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description only re-frames the id as belonging to an already-created listing and adds no format or validation detail, which is the baseline 3.

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+resource+key: 'Look up a ParcelLaunch listing that was already created, by its listing id.' The phrase 'already created' cleanly separates it from the sibling create_3d_listing and from get_pricing, so an agent can route without opening 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?

The 'already created' framing plus the schema's reference to create_3d_listing makes the usage context (retrieve a listing produced by create_3d_listing) clear. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative for a failed/missing lookup, so it stops short of a 5.

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