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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read only' is confirmatory rather than additive. It does add real context the annotations lack: the auth requirement ('user's Cotlet API key with access to this app') and the set of fields returned, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loads the return contents and then the use case, with no filler. There is mild redundancy between the first sentence ('details, photos, floor plan...') and the second ('returns one listing with its price...photos...floor plan') that slightly bloats it.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden and summarizes what an agent gets back, plus the auth prerequisite. It stops short of describing the raw shape or how badges like Checked vs TruCheck are represented, but is largely complete for a single-item read.

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 100%, and the schema itself documents that listing_id accepts an ID or reference number from list_listings. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get one listing') and enumerates exactly what comes back: price, purpose, photos, floor plan, quality score, and badges. The singular framing distinguishes it from the collection-oriented sibling list_listings without ambiguity.

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?

Gives a concrete use case: 'Use it to check whether a TruCheck request went through,' which ties it to the sibling request_trucheck workflow. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the read-one-listing purpose is clear enough to route correctly.

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