get_listing_from_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what 'full details' includes, whether it triggers network requests, rate limits, or auth requirements. Since it's a read operation, but no safety implications are described, this is a gap. The description is very brief, offering minimal behavioral info beyond the action.

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?

One sentence, no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource. It's appropriately concise, though it could be more informative without losing structure.

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 single-parameter tool with a clear output concept, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't specify what 'full details' includes, whether errors are returned for invalid URLs, or if there are rate limits. Given no output schema, a bit more detail on return value would help.

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 the url parameter with format and pattern requirements. The description adds a tiny bit of context by saying 'canonical URL' and the expected format, which matches the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting but the description reinforces the constraints.

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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'full details of a Sheypoor listing', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_listing. It mentions the input is a canonical URL, which is specific. However, it doesn't name the sibling get_listing to explicitly differentiate, even though the distinction is implied.

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 when you have a canonical URL and need full listing details, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over get_listing (which likely takes an ID) or other search tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving some inference.

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