alt_listing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context: the operation is public, it returns full listing detail, it normalizes native and external listings, and not every field applies to every listing_type. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, but the public read-only nature and data-consistency caveats are well disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The only minor redundancy is that the first and second sentences both emphasize 'one listing's full public detail,' but the second sentence adds the specific returned fields and normalization behavior. Overall it is efficient and free of filler.

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?

For a low-complexity endpoint with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is needed: input provenance, the type of data returned, normalization behavior, and a per-listing_type caveat. It could be more self-contained if it embedded the field-level notes instead of referencing a markdown doc, but the essential context for invoking and interpreting the tool is present.

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 the schema already documents both parameters well. The description slightly reinforces that both values come from a prior alt-search/alt-auctions result, but this is mostly a restatement of the schema descriptions rather than new semantic value.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get one Alt listing's full public detail.' It further clarifies scope by naming the fields returned and by stating that it normalizes Alt's native listings and external aggregated listings. The reference to a prior alt-search/alt-auctions result helps distinguish this detail endpoint from the list-oriented sibling tools.

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 states that 'id and listing_type come from a prior alt-search/alt-auctions result,' which tells the agent when to call this tool and what inputs are expected. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide 'when not to use' exclusions, but the workflow context is strong enough for correct selection.

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