listing_derive

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output is an AI-derived narrative, implying a generative, likely read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether the tool mutates data, requires special permissions, or has any side effects.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's function and output, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description explains the output shape (one-paragraph thesis memo) and the key inputs, which is adequate for a simple tool. However, the lack of usage guidance and potential overlap with gin_deal_memo leaves the context incomplete for an agent to confidently select 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema sufficiently documents the lang and listing_id parameters. The description adds context about what the tool does with the listing (synthesizing a narrative) but does not add specific format or usage details beyond 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 the tool generates an AI-derived investor narrative for a listing, specifying it as a one-paragraph thesis synthesizing GIN pillars, financial vision, and location. It is distinct from data retrieval tools like get_listing or get_gin_score, though it could be confused with the sibling gin_deal_memo without explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling names such as gin_deal_memo and gin_ask suggest overlapping purposes, but the description offers no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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