get_listing_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (scrape a detail page, return structured data + optional report) and hints at the include_report toggle. But it does not disclose that this is a live external-site scrape with rate-limit/failure implications, the retry semantics behind the retries parameter, or error handling behavior — gaps for a network-bound tool with zero 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 efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose (scrape detail page URL) before describing the output. Every element earns its place and there is zero waste, though the parameter-to-behavior mapping (include_report) could have been made slightly more explicit within the same length.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so that part is handled. But for a moderately complex network-scraping tool with 4 parameters, zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is thin: it omits when-to-use guidance, retry/timeout semantics, and scraping-behavior caveats. Adequate for the core purpose but with clear gaps.

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 must compensate. It partially does: the url parameter is implied ('单个自如详情页 URL') and the include_report parameter is mapped via '可选中文 Markdown 报告'. However, retries and timeout_seconds are left entirely unexplained, and with zero schema descriptions those two parameters are undocumented everywhere.

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 (抓取/scrape), a precise resource (单个自如详情页 URL), and the output shape (structured fields + optional Chinese Markdown report). This clearly distinguishes it from the search-session siblings (create_search_session, set_sort, get_results), which all operate on queries and result lists rather than a single listing detail.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: a detail-page scraper naturally follows after obtaining listing URLs via get_results. However, the description never says when to use this versus get_results, nor names an alternative or any exclusion condition. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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