get_listing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states what is returned and, notably, what is never returned ('Never returns the agent's phone'). It doesn't mention error cases or side effects, but as a read-oriented tool the listing of contents and the negative guarantee add meaningful transparency beyond a generic 'get' description.

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 that packs a concrete list of return fields and an exclusion. Every clause adds value—no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives specifics efficiently.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a thorough inventory of the response contents, which is the main contextual missing piece. It does not discuss error behavior or authentication, but that is a minor gap for this simple retrieval tool. Overall it gives the agent enough context to invoke it 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?

The schema already describes the only parameter (id as Listing UUID) with 100% coverage. The description does not add semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does implicitly confirm that the id refers to a listing, but that is already in the schema.

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 that the tool retrieves full detail for a single listing by id and enumerates the specific fields returned (price, AI scores, M-Value AVM, FCR/title trust, provenance, GIN pillars + verdict). It distinguishes from sibling search_listings by focusing on one listing by id, and from get_gin_score by including GIN pillars as part of a full detail set.

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 phrase 'Full detail for one listing by id' makes it clear this is for getting a single listing's comprehensive record, implying use when you have a specific id rather than searching. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for the agent to select it appropriately.

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