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

Annotations already cover the read-only, open-world, non-destructive profile. The description adds real context beyond them: the exact payload shape, the own-vs-public listing scope, and a required Cotlet API key with app-level access, which is genuine auth/behavioral disclosure an agent needs before calling.

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 returned field list, then the scope and the auth requirement. Mostly efficient, though 'so your agent can read a flat before it asks for a visit' is slightly chatty filler even if it does carry usage intent.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so by enumerating the fields returned, plus it discloses the API key prerequisite. A bit more on error/not-found behavior would make it fully complete, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents listing_id and its accepted values. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for schema-does-the-work is appropriate.

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 (get) and resource (listing) and enumerates the returned fields (category, type, contract, address, price, photos, floor plans, URL). It is clearly distinguishable from immobiliare_list_listings and immobiliare_create_listing, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 supplies a use case ('read a flat before it asks for a visit'), which implies a relationship with request_visit, and notes it works for both own and public listings. However it never states when to prefer this over list_listings or other siblings, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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