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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds 'Get full listing detail' which is consistent. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens if the ID/slug is invalid. The mismatch between 'by ID or slug' in the description and the schema parameter named 'id' (with no clarification) could cause confusion, reducing transparency.

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?

The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose and parameter information without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on what 'full listing detail' specifically includes. Without an output schema, the agent may need more explicit information about the return structure to correctly consume the result. However, the description does cover the key parameter behavior.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds critical semantic value by explaining that the 'id' field can accept either a listing ID or a slug. This is essential for correct invocation and goes beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('full listing detail'), and specifies that retrieval can be by 'ID or slug'. This is a typical read operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_listings' (which returns multiple listings) and 'edit_listing' (which modifies).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implied that one uses it when needing detailed information on a specific listing, it does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions (e.g., 'Use this when you have a listing ID or slug; for summarizing listings, use search_listings').

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