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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about safety, auth requirements, error behavior (e.g. missing listing), or return shape. 'One listing' is the only behavioral hint, leaving most traits undisclosed.

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 a single sentence fragment with no filler, which is front-loaded and tight. But it is arguably over-terse and grammatically awkward ('slug d'), trading clarity for brevity rather than earning its compressed length.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits the distinction between who and npub as separate params, the format default, and any error or auth context. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies that the publisher can be given as handle, npub, or hex, which explains the who/npub duality, but it says nothing about the required slug 'd' semantics or the format enum beyond what the schema already states.

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 states it returns 'one listing' identified by a publisher and slug 'd', which gives a resource and an identifier. However, it lacks a verb ('get' is only implied by the name) and 'listing' is never defined, so an agent cannot tell precisely what domain object this returns relative to siblings like get_paper or get_thread.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling get_* and list_* tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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