get_listing_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: the data comes from local configuration, mock IDs exist and are simulation-only, and agents must not guess real IDs. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the purpose and source, the second adds the critical mock-ID warning. No sentence is wasted and the caveat is front-loaded enough.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, closed-world tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, source, and key caveats. The main gap is that it does not explicitly route the agent away from sibling tools, but that is a usage-guideline issue rather than missing core context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics baseline is 4. The empty schema leaves nothing for the description to compensate for, and the description correctly focuses on data provenance rather than arguments.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: read verified category/brand/condition/size/package IDs and labels from local configuration. It does not name sibling tools or contrast with them, so an agent must infer its place among get_listing, prepare_listing, and publish_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?

It implies usage by warning never to guess real IDs and noting mock IDs are only for simulation, but it never states when to call this tool instead of get_listing or prepare_listing. The guidance is present but not comparative.

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