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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses that the read targets public (not private) listings. It says nothing about behavior on an unknown ID, whether authentication is required, or what a listing record contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and scoping constraint stated immediately and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 close, but with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the definition should at least state invalid-ID behavior and roughly what is returned. As written, the agent knows the intent but not the contract.

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 0% and the single 'id' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description's phrase "stable ID" is the only semantic clue, indicating a persistent identifier rather than a transient one. It still omits format (slug, UUID, numeric) and source of the ID, leaving a real gap.

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?

"Read one public listing by stable ID" gives a specific verb (read) and resource (a single public listing), which separates it from search_listings and my_listings by scope. It stops short of naming the sibling tools explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"By stable ID" implies the caller must already hold an identifier, hinting that search_listings is the way to obtain one, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent must infer the retrieval-before-fetch workflow.

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