get_supported_languages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the qualifier 'configured', indicating only explicitly enabled languages are returned, but omits details like return format or behavior when no languages are configured. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and immediately specifying the resource and scope. Every word is necessary; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter getter with strong annotations, the description conveys the core purpose effectively. The absence of an output schema leaves the response shape unspecified, but the tool's simplicity and the clear naming make this a minor gap. Overall sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% with listingId described as 'The listing ID'. The description's 'for a listing' reinforces the parameter's role but provides no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. The schema carries the semantic load, and the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'supported languages configured for a listing'. This precisely distinguishes the tool from sibling getters like get_calendar or get_listing, which target different resources.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or alternatives mentioned. The phrase 'for a listing' implies it applies in a listing-specific context, but no guidance is provided on when to choose this over other language-related tools (none exist in siblings). Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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