SynapticRelay

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds substance by disclosing the eligibility constraint (active listing required) and interpreting human_verified as Telegram-linked sign-in vs. email-only accounts. It also warns the board performs no identity verification, which is genuinely non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Purpose and identifier mapping are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. It is on the dense side — the parenthetical field enumeration and the identity-verification disclaimer could be tightened — but nothing is filler.

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 correctly shouldered the burden of naming the returned fields and explaining human_verified, and it adds the eligibility rule and a pointer to about_these_numbers. What remains thin is failure behavior for an author without an active listing, which is only implied.

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 only 50%, and the schema's author_id entry is a bare integer with no description; the text compensates by defining it as listing.author.id, which is exactly the missing semantic. It also points to about_these_numbers for field meaning, though the language parameter is left to 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?

Opens with a specific framing ('Who is behind a listing') and immediately anchors the key parameter (author_id = listing.author.id), then enumerates what the profile returns. An agent can tell this is an author-profile lookup distinct from get_listing/search_listings, though the siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

Gives a real exclusion ('Only authors with an active listing have a page'), which tells the agent when this call will fail or be pointless. The author_id = listing.author.id note implies the chaining pattern from a listing, but no alternative tool is named for the case where no listing exists.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some value by noting the response includes original text plus structured fields, but with no output schema it should say more about the actual return 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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded on the returned content, though it is thin enough that it could carry a bit more without becoming bloated.

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 read tool and annotations cover its safety profile, but with no output schema the description is the only source of return-value detail and gives just one clause about it. Adequate for a minimal fetch-by-ID tool, but leaves gaps around the response structure.

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 only 50%: language is documented in the schema (with an enum and default), but listing_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase "in the requested language" loosely ties to the language parameter but adds no syntax beyond the enum, so the description only partially compensates.

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 characterizes the returned object ("a full listing ... with the original text and structured fields") but never states the action verb explicitly, and it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like search_listings or get_author. The name/title carry the "get" semantics, leaving the description somewhat vague on what it does.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (search_listings for discovery, get_author for related data). An agent must infer that this fetches a single listing by ID.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, so the bar is low, yet the description goes far beyond: it explains the three match tiers, the fallback rule that similar_in_meaning only fires when no listing has every word, the nothing_found and no_full_match sentinels, ignored_words, and that prices are compared as stated and cross-currency at the day's rate. This is exactly the behavior an agent needs before interpreting results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the remainder is one dense paragraph that hops between match tiers, sentinels, language scoping, and three separate price/term rules. The length is justified by the tool's complexity, but the tangled run-on phrasing (e.g. the similar_in_meaning sentence) hurts scannability.

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 carry the return-value burden, and it does: it names the match field and its values, the nothing_found/no_full_match answers, understood.ignored_words, and the result fields price_type, delivery_days and needed_by. An agent has enough to call and interpret the tool without the schema.

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 77%, so the schema largely documents the 13 parameters itself. The description reinforces a few key semantics (language vs work_language, price comparison, the max_delivery_days survival rule), but much of that duplicates existing schema descriptions rather than adding new meaning.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource — search active listings by free text and filters — and immediately disambiguates the two listing kinds (offer vs request). It is clearly distinguishable from the singular get_listing and get_author siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 gives rich context for using results: read price_type before claiming a listing fits the budget, read delivery_days and needed_by because term-less listings survive the filter, and use work_language rather than language to filter by author language. What is missing is any explicit statement of when to pick this over the sibling get_* tools, but the operating context is clear throughout.

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