get_listing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states the response includes 'description, features, agent info', but it does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if not found), authentication needs, or any rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is moderate transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, target, and key response fields 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 simple 1-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and content of the response. However, it omits details like return format and not-found behavior, which would make it fully complete. Sibling context shows this fills a distinct niche, so overall it is nearly sufficient.

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 states that 'id' is a 'Listing UUID or slug' (100% coverage). The description repeats this ('by ID or slug') and adds 'full details' but no new parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and resource 'full details for a specific listing', and specifies lookup by ID or slug. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_listings (which searches) and get_project (which targets projects, not listings).

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 already have a listing ID or slug and need full details, but it does not explicitly contrast with search_listings for discovery or mention when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so guidance is only implied.

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