analyze_listing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists output components but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects (e.g., caching), requires special permissions, or imposes rate limits. The caching behavior is only mentioned in the include_images parameter description, not in the main description. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 is concise and front-loaded with 'Everything about one listing'. It lists key components efficiently without excessive detail. The structure is clear, though it could benefit from separating the list into bullet points for readability. Overall, it earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the main output categories but omits mention of the profile parameter that significantly alters scoring behavior, and the optional flags (include_images, include_comparables_list) are not highlighted. The output schema likely documents return values, so that is covered. However, the description would be more complete if it hinted at the customization options and the optional enrichments.

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 50%, meaning listing_id and include_comparables_list lack schema descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining these parameters or the profile customization options. However, the parameters are relatively self-explanatory (listing_id is obvious, include_comparables_list is clear from its name), so the lack of explicit documentation is mitigated. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline 3.

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's purpose: 'Everything about one listing' and enumerates the specific components (full record, price history, description flags, comparables, project-car score, deal signals). This distinguishes it from more focused siblings like get_listing, get_price_history, get_comparables, and score_listing. The verb 'analyze' plus the comprehensive resource scope make the intent unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies it is the comprehensive analysis option, it does not state conditions, trade-offs, or when to prefer a more specialized tool like get_listing or score_listing. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling set.

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