get_listing_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation ('Retrieve'). However, it does not disclose whether the tool requires any specific access, what happens with invalid or non-existent URLs/IDs, rate limits, or the exact shape of the returned data. The read-only nature is implied but return format is undocumented.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Retrieve' and the object. There is minor redundancy ('full attributes, images, and seller profile' alongside 'comprehensive details') but overall it is tight and organized.

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 adequately conveys the tool's scope for a simple single-parameter retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from describing what the return data looks like and behavior around missing/invalid inputs to be fully complete. The multi-item list of returned content mitigates but does not fully close this gap.

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 schema already describes the single parameter ('full OLX listing URL or numeric Listing ID') with 100% coverage. The description adds clarity by emphasizing the two accepted input forms (URL or ID). This meaningfully supplements the schema by confirming either format works, which is helpful operational information.

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 a clear verb-resource structure ('Retrieve comprehensive details... for a specific OLX listing') and specifies the two input forms (URL or Listing ID). It distinguishes from the sibling 'search_listings' tool, though it does not explicitly state the differentiation. Slightly verbose with redundant qualifiers like 'comprehensive details, description, full attributes...'.

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 implies usage for fetching individual listing details rather than searching, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs search_listings, nor provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. Usage is inferable from the sibling context but not directly articulated.

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