Get photo URLs for a Hemnet listing

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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already cover the safety profile, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only' while adding an active-for-sale constraint. It does not, however, disclose failure behavior for invalid or inactive listing IDs, nor the shape of the returned URL collection.

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 front-loaded sentence states the action, resource, scope, and accepted input form with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with a fully described schema and annotations, this is nearly complete: it names the return concept (photo URLs), restricts to active for-sale listings, and tells how to specify the listing. It only lacks an explicit note about response format/empty results and sibling routing.

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 documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including that id can be an id or a full /bostad/ URL and that limit has a default of 50. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it returns gallery photo URLs for active for-sale Hemnet listings, and it accepts either an id or a /bostad/ URL. This scope clearly separates it from sibling tools like hemnet_get_listing and hemnet_get_sold_listing, even though no sibling is named.

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 clearly states the intended context: active for-sale listings requiring photo URLs, which implies it is not for sold/inactive listings. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as hemnet_get_listing for full details, so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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