Get Listing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get...', which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose whether the call is read-only, what it returns, whether it depends on other resources, or any side effects. This is minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though the brevity contributes to the ambiguity with 'get_store_listing'.

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?

Although parameters are fully documented and an output schema exists, the description does not clarify the important distinction between this tool and the near-identical sibling 'get_store_listing'. Without that differentiation, the definition is incomplete for correct tool selection in a large sibling namespace.

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 baseline is 3 even though the description adds little. The phrase 'for a specific language' maps to the 'language' parameter, and 'store listing' vaguely maps to 'package_name', but the schema already explains both. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what structured fields provide.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('store listing') plus a specific qualifier ('for a specific language'), but it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling 'get_store_listing', which appears to target the same concept. An agent could reasonably confuse the two without opening schemas.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as 'get_store_listing', 'list_all_listings', or 'update_listing'. There are no exclusions or condition-based routing cues, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource name alone.

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