get_listing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this by stating the call does not contact Vinted, which tells the agent data may be cached/stale rather than live. It does not say what happens when draft_id is unknown, but adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler; the key constraint (no Vinted contact) is front-loaded-ish at the end. 'Exact' is slightly vague but does not bloat the description.

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 one-parameter read there is no output schema, and the description never indicates what fields the 'summary' contains or how a missing/unknown draft is signalled. Adequate to select the tool, but thin on return-shape expectations.

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 parameter 'draft_id' is undocumented in the schema. The description never explains what a draft_id is, where to obtain it, or its format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('listing summary and publication status'), which distinguishes it from mutating siblings like prepare_listing and publish_listing. It does not explicitly contrast with get_status, which reads as the closest sibling, so the separation is only implied.

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?

'Without contacting Vinted' implies this is the local/cached lookup path, which gives some context for choosing it over a remote fetch. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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