listings_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose that the listing is part of an edit draft (editId is required), nor does it mention read-only nature, permissions, or side effects. The description fails to clarify behavioral traits beyond the bare action.

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 a single sentence with low word count, but it is overly terse. It sacrifices clarity and context for brevity. While not verbose, it could be restructured to include essential information like the edit session context without adding excessive 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?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity (3 required params), the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., store listing data) and how it fits into the broader edit workflow. It does not address return values, differentiation from listings_list, or the lifecycle of edit sessions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate. However, the connection between editId and the 'edits.* writes' context is implied but not elaborated. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get one locale's listing' clearly states the action (get) and resource (listing, scoped to a locale). It distinguishes from siblings like listings_list (multiple) and listings_delete (delete), but does not explicitly differentiate from other get operations like details_get. The purpose is understandable but could be more specific about the edit context.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus siblings like listings_list (which would retrieve listings for all locales) or details_get. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an existing edit session), common pitfalls, or alternatives. The agent must infer context from the required editId parameter, which is insufficient.

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