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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the access-control model (active listings public; draft/sold/closed/expired restricted to owner) and the failure mode when the identity isn't configured (reported as not found). It omits rate limits and output shape, but the output schema covers the latter.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the visibility qualifier. No filler and no restating of the title.

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 single-record lookup with a full input schema and an output schema already published, the description supplies the one thing structured fields can't: the visibility/ownership rule and the not-found behavior. Little is missing, though a note on what the caller receives for an unauthorized-but-existing listing would close the loop.

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 is fully documented as the listing UUID, so the schema already does the work. The description's reference to "UUID" adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ("Retrieve") and resource ("one listing") and pins the lookup key to a UUID, which cleanly separates it from the search/list siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings 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?

Usage is implied – call this when you already have a listing UUID rather than search criteria – but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative tool is named. The visibility rules hint at edge cases but do not route the agent between tools.

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