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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already declare the safety and openness profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does add one useful behavioral note — the response includes the Teppek contact route, i.e. contact details are surfaced — but says nothing about what happens with an unknown or stale 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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, with the resource scope front-loaded and the usage condition second. Every clause contributes either identification or routing information.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations plus a fully documented parameter leave little to fill in. The only remaining gap is failure behavior for an id that doesn't exist or belongs to another user, which the description never touches.

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% and the single parameter is documented with origin (the `id` field of search_listings/semantic_search/list_my_listings) and an example. The description only restates "by id", so the schema carries the semantic load; baseline 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?

"Fetch the full detail of ONE Teppek listing by id" gives a specific verb, a bounded resource and the key selector, then enumerates the fields returned (title, description, price/salary, location, contact route). The emphasis on "ONE" plus the explicit follow-up role distinguishes it from search_listings and semantic_search, which return sets.

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?

"Use after search_listings to show, summarize or compare a specific job, home, vehicle or service the user picked" names the correct trigger and the sibling it follows. It does not explicitly state the inverse (do not call this to browse or filter), but the singleton scope makes that clear by implication.

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