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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: broker contact is returned only to users authorised to manage the listing, and those users additionally get lease suites with id/status. That conditional, permission-dependent shaping of the response is genuinely useful disclosure.

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 action, then progressively details the return payload. Mostly dense and purposeful, though the trailing clause 'the rows update_listing takes back' is awkward and slightly muddies the lease-suite point.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so well: parcel data, attribute details, photos, broker documents with filename and download URL, and the auth-gated broker contact and lease suites. Complete enough for correct invocation, with only minor polish left.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema documents the hashid format and where to find it). The description merely restates 'by its hashid' and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Retrieve the full details of a single listing by its hashid.' The singular scope implicitly separates it from the list/search siblings (search_listings, list_my_listings), but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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: it is clearly the detail-fetch that follows a search hit or listing URL, and the hashid origin is given in the schema. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, so it stays at minimum-viable.

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