datasets_vehicle_listings_item

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns one crawled vehicle listing and names the dataset, adding context beyond the tool name. But it does not cover error behavior, authentication needs, data freshness/staleness, or the shape of the returned listing.

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 short, directly relevant sentences. The main action is front-loaded, followed by precise id and dataset details. There is no filler or redundant wording, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisites: the dataset enum value, the id format, and the fact that the result is one listing. It does not describe the listing's fields or error cases, but those are less critical for correctly invoking this tool.

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 input schema already documents the single `id` parameter fully, including format and example, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description repeats the same id format (`<source>:<source_listing_id>`) without adding new meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('vehicle listing from dataset'), and the lookup mode (by id). It also identifies the exact dataset enum value (`vehicle-listings`) and the required id format with an example, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like datasets_vehicle_listings_search, datasets_vehicle_listings_facets, and datasets_vehicle_listings_price_history.

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 implicitly establishes when to use the tool: when the agent has a listing id and wants the corresponding full crawled listing. It gives the id format and dataset context, making the use case clear. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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