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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the data comes from a bundled public index (ai/listings.json), which hints the result is static/local, but it never states behavior on missing records or how the slug/id are resolved against the index.

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 front-loaded sentence naming verb, resource, and lookup keys with zero filler or redundancy. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 two-param getter with full annotation coverage this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should at least hint at the shape of the returned listing or the failure mode when a slug/id is not found. It leaves the agent to infer both.

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%, so both parameters (id, slug) are already documented as Listing-UUID/Immowelt-ID and URL-Slug. The description only restates 'per slug oder id' without adding resolution logic or precedence when both are supplied, so it stays at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (laden) and resource (öffentliches Kaufangebot), plus the two lookup keys (slug oder id) and the source index (ai/listings.json). This clearly separates it from search_listings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling getters (get_contact, get_flyer).

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 phrase 'per slug oder id' implies a direct single-object lookup as opposed to search_listings' querying, but the description never states when to use this tool versus the search sibling or what happens when neither key resolves. Usage is only implied.

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