Get a Compass agent's listings

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: it specifies the exact return envelope, explains that active listings carry the same normalized fields as compass_get_property, discloses that closed deals are omitted by default unless include_closed: true, and states it is read-only and safe to call repeatedly. This gives an agent a detailed behavioral model without needing an output schema.

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 fairly long but well-structured with labeled sections (CLOSED DEALS, CHAINING), front-loaded primary behavior, and no wasted sentences. The only mild redundancy is 'Read-only; safe to call repeatedly,' which duplicates the annotations, but it is brief and harmless.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides a thorough return shape, field-level normalization guidance, default behavior, optional parameters, and chaining context. It covers the one-of slug/profile_url requirement in prose, and the schema covers the view parameter in detail. No major operational gaps remain.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by clarifying that slug and profile_url are interchangeable alternatives, giving a concrete slug example, and specifying that include_closed appends a closed_deals array with the same normalized shape. This is meaningful but not exhaustive enough to merit a 5.

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: 'Fetch the listings represented by a Compass agent from their profile page.' It also gives concrete examples of accepted identifiers ('paige-mcguirk', full URL) and distinguishes the data from what sibling tools return by referencing compass_get_property normalization and compass_search_properties' lack of listing agent info.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need an agent's full listing set, optional closed deals, or want to chain property → agent → other listings. It contrasts with compass_search_properties implicitly, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like compass_get_property for a single property, so it falls short of a 5.

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