agentsget_listings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose aspects like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (no output schema). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 with no wasted words. However, it's under-specified rather than concise—it could benefit from more detail to be truly helpful, but as written, it's structurally sound and front-loaded with the core 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify the resource type (e.g., property listings), output format, or behavioral traits like pagination. With no annotations to fill gaps, the description fails to provide enough context for effective use.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (page, channel, linkedSalespeopleIds, pageSize). The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., that linkedSalespeopleIds is required and filters listings by agent) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get listings of an agent' states the basic action (get) and resource (listings of an agent), but it's vague about what 'listings' specifically refers to (e.g., property listings, contact listings). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'agentslist' (which might list agents themselves) or 'propertieslist' (which might list properties generally), leaving ambiguity about scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain how it differs from 'agentslist' (which might list agents) or 'propertieslist' (which might list properties without agent filtering), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing agent IDs from another endpoint. The description lacks context for tool selection.

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