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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior. The description adds meaningful context by stating it returns the same data an anonymous visitor sees, applies only to active listings, and explicitly excludes the private access link — valuable guarantees beyond the hints.

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, tightly worded sentence conveys the action, scope, and the important public/private distinction without filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 an output schema present, one fully documented parameter, strong safety annotations, and a description that clarifies public scope and active-listing constraint, nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

The only parameter, id, is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, including its provenance from search_agents/list_agents. The description's 'by its id' adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 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?

It explicitly states 'Fetch one active listing's full PUBLIC details by its id', giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. The qualifiers 'one' and 'PUBLIC' clearly distinguish this from list/search operations and from any private access tool.

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 establishes the clear use case: given a listing id, retrieve that single listing's full public details. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like search_agents or list_agents as the list-based choice, but the single-id retrieval context is unambiguous.

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