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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') and specifies that the data is 'public listing metadata', which implies safe, read-only behavior. It also discloses the specific data elements returned, offering useful behavioral context beyond the empty schema.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that lists the key output fields without any redundancy or irrelevant details. Every word contributes value, and the structure is clear and front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose and return contents, which is adequate for a zero-parameter read tool. However, it does not specify which listing is being referred to (implicit context), nor does it describe the return format or any potential edge cases. Given the empty schema and no output schema, a slight clarification would improve completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics is not a concern. The baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameters. It appropriately focuses on the return content instead.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('public listing metadata') and enumerates the exact contents (target user, fee schedule, settlement currencies/chains, cumulative volume, council origin). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trade_get_fees and trade_get_invoice, which target different resources.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need public listing metadata with the specified fields. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names and the specificity of the description provide clear context for the intended use case.

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