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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that data is from the public page and includes no personal information. However, it omits error behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a mutationless read tool.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a short instructional sentence about surfacing the trust signal. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 param, no output schema), the description covers the key points: what it returns, how to interpret stanford_verified, and how to contact the poster. Lacks error handling info but sufficient for its complexity.

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% for the single parameter 'id'. Description adds context that the id is numeric and comes from search_listings, which is helpful beyond the schema's basic description.

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?

Clearly states the tool fetches one Capmus listing by numeric id, listing the specific fields returned (full description, public photo URLs, stanford_verified). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_listings which likely return multiple listings.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to surface stanford_verified (always when presenting listings) and how to use the returned URL to contact the poster. Lacks explicit exclusion scenarios but gives clear context.

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