get_listing_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the fallback mechanism and inclusion of BIL translations, which are key behavioral traits beyond the basic retrieval. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the name implies a read operation.

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 sentences: first sentence lists the output content, second explains the data sourcing strategy. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Well-structured and front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and how it retrieves data. It mentions key details like fallback and translations. It could optionally mention prerequisite parameter formats but is sufficient for the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. However, the description does not explain the parameters (sku, marketplace) beyond implying the listing is identified via some identifier. It adds minimal semantic value over the raw schema, missing an opportunity to clarify parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool returns listing content (title, bullets, keywords, offers, attributes) and specifies the data sources (Listings API with fallback to Catalog API). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product_details or get_listing_issues.

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 provides explicit guidance on data retrieval order (Listings API first, then Catalog API if attributes missing). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives, the context of data sources and fallback behavior gives clear usage context.

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