get_listing

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: no phone reveal or login-gated data, no side effects such as messaging or purchase, and that a visible listing may already be sold (staleness caveat).

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?

Three short sentences with the capability front-loaded, boundaries second, and the staleness caveat last. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fills that gap by naming the fields returned and the content deliberately excluded. Combined with the annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly and to interpret what it will and won't get back.

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 0% and the single required parameter is only identified as 'url'. The description implies it must be an Avito listing URL but gives no format, canonicalization, or error behavior for invalid/shortened links, so it only partially compensates for the bare 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?

States a specific verb plus resource ('Read a full Avito listing URL') and enumerates exactly what is returned: price, seller-declared condition, model/parameters, description, seller rating/type, and quoted defect/mining/repair/testing mentions. This clearly separates it from search_listings and compare_listings, which operate over sets rather than a single fetched listing.

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 exclusions ('No phone reveal, login, messaging or purchase') tell the agent what this tool cannot accomplish, which is useful negative guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over search_listings or compare_listings, nor what input conditions are required (e.g. a canonical listing URL).

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