get_listing

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state what the returned record includes, but it does not clarify invocation behavior, freshness, error semantics, effect of include_photos, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some return-content context but not enough behavioral transparency for an unannotated tool.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core idea ('Full listing record') and then lists key contents. It is compact and generally scannable, though the phrase 'same-vehicle candidates' is somewhat jargon-heavy without further explanation.

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 call itself is simple: one required listing_id with a well-documented format, a self-explanatory boolean default, and an output schema that can carry return details. However, the description does not say when to choose this over the sibling tools, and with no annotations the safety/behavioral context is incomplete.

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%, with listing_id well documented but include_photos left unexplained. The tool description does not compensate for this gap and does not mention include_photos at all. The parameter name and default give partial meaning, but the description adds no parameter-level value.

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 clear noun phrase, 'Full listing record,' and enumerates the distinct components it returns: price history, change events, description flags, vehicle link, and same-vehicle candidates. This differentiates it somewhat from sibling tools like get_vehicle, get_price_history, and get_listing_changes, though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 gives no guidance on when to use get_listing versus the many overlapping siblings such as get_vehicle, get_price_history, get_listing_changes, or get_comparables. An agent must infer usage from the name and the enumerated fields. There is no exclusion or alternative recommendation.

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