get_listing_images

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read operation and narrowing to full-size URLs only, but it does not mention response format, empty-result behavior, authentication needs, or error cases. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the qualifier 'only full-size' adds precision without unnecessary length.

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 one-parameter read tool, the scope is reasonably clear, and the agent can infer it needs a listing id. However, the absence of an output schema and any mention of the response envelope (e.g., whether an array of URLs is returned or what happens when a listing has no images) leaves a meaningful gap in expectations.

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 provides only a required 'id' property with no description, giving 0% schema description coverage. The description adds some meaning by saying 'for a listing', implying that id is the listing identifier, but it does not explicitly confirm the id's role or accepted formats beyond what the schema already states.

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 'Return' and resource 'full-size image URLs for a listing', clearly stating what the tool does. The word 'only' implicitly differentiates it from the sibling get_listing tool, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 intended use—retrieving image URLs for a listing—is implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_listing or get_listing_from_url. It provides clear context but relies on inference rather than stating usage boundaries or exclusions.

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