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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope and response contents, plus the contact-route nuance, but doesn't disclose behavior around invalid IDs, stale listings, or how openWorldHint affects results. It adds some value beyond annotations but is not deeply transparent.

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 with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence provides useful workflow context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and readOnly/openWorld annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining needed context: it names the listing types, the fields returned, and the recommended preceding call. An agent has enough to select and invoke this tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single listing_id parameter. It adds only 'by id' and implies the ID comes from search_listings; it doesn't describe the ID's format, origin, or how to recognize a valid one. The parameter is simple, but coverage is low and the description could do more.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the full detail of ONE Teppek listing by id'. It lists concrete content (title, description, price/salary, location, contact route) and explicitly scopes the resource to 'job, home, vehicle or service', clearly distinguishing it from list/search siblings.

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'Use after search_listings to show, summarize or compare a specific... listing the user picked.' This tells the agent when in the flow the tool belongs and what task it serves. It does not explicitly state when not to use alternative tools, but the contrast with search_listings is clear.

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