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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuine content-scope detail — the specific fields and widget images returned — which is valuable since there is no output schema. It does not mention failure modes, missing listings, or payload size, which is the remaining gap.

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, zero filler, with the positive case front-loaded and the exclusion second. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

For a simple read tool with annotations present and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, returned content, and the sibling boundary well. The only omissions are the meaning of response_format and whether 'context' influences output, both of which an agent could get wrong.

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 67% and the description adds no parameter-level information at all. The 'app' and 'context' params are schema-documented, but 'response_format' (the only enum) has no description anywhere, so the concise/detailed distinction must be inferred. Roughly baseline for this coverage level.

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 names the resource and enumerates exactly what it returns (name, subtitle, description, keywords, starter prompts, widget images), so an agent knows it is a read of listing content. The verb is implicit ('what a listing says or shows') rather than stated directly, which keeps it just short of a fully explicit verb+resource statement.

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 an explicit trigger ('when you need what a listing says or shows') and an explicit exclusion paired with the alternative ('Do not use for ranks or metrics; use listings_profile'). The selection decision between two closely named siblings is fully resolved in the text.

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