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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the exact field scope and explicitly excluding host contact details, which agents would otherwise assume were included.

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, no filler, with the field enumeration front-loaded and the exclusion ('No host contact details') placed last as a boundary note. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does by naming the key fields and the one field category withheld. It stops short of covering error behavior or behavior for missing/closed listings, so it is strong but not airtight.

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%, so both parameters (listing_id, language enum) are already documented, including the default language. The description's field list describes return content rather than parameter meaning, so it adds no parameter semantics 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?

States a specific resource ('one Roraima listing') and enumerates the returned fields, which is far more than a restatement of the name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_listings by scoping to a single listing, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 itself gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives; the only routing hint ('listing_id from search_listings') lives in the schema, not the description. Usage after a search is implied but not stated, so this is minimum-viable.

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