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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a read operation, not what happens when the id is unknown, not whether the id is required (the schema marks it optional). The description is silent on all behavioral traits.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — a four-word fragment with no verb, no subject, and no useful front-loaded information. Brevity here costs clarity rather than saving 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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup this is still too thin: there is no output schema, so the description should at least indicate what a 'listing' contains or what an invalid/missing id yields. The only reason this is not a 1 is that the tool's surface area is genuinely small.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is documented in the schema as the 'Dayplay listing id.' The description adds no format, source, or lookup semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema 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?

The description is a noun fragment ("One event or place.") that restates the resource noun in the tool name rather than stating an action. It does implicitly clarify that a 'listing' maps to an event or a place, which is mild domain value, but it never says the tool retrieves or returns a listing, and it distinguishes itself from get_events/get_places only by implication of the singular.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (get_events, get_places, get_venue_events, browse_places, etc.). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of what input is needed to call it.

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