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

With no annotations, the description must carry full burden. It discloses the output structure (9 dimensions, scores, evidence-based reasoning) and mentions the scoring rubric v3.1. It does not mention side effects or authentication, but as a read-only retrieval, the description is adequate. A slight deduction for not explicitly stating it is non-destructive or read-only.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 covers the output details (9 dimensions, scoring, evidence) despite no output schema. It mentions the rubric version. It does not explain the format of the output (e.g., JSON structure), but it's sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive. Slight deduction for missing format details.

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 100% with one parameter 'slug' described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely echoes that the tool is for a single tool. With high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and no additional value is provided.

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 clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (full agenticness evaluation breakdown) with specific details: 9 dimensions, scoring 0-4 each, plus evidence-based reasoning. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating that get_listing provides a quick score and compare_listings is for comparisons.

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 provides explicit when-to-use (deep analysis of one tool's AI agent capabilities) and when-not-to-use (for quick score use get_listing, for comparisons use compare_listings) guidance, making it very clear for an agent to decide.

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