get_listing_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool returns a JSON with title, price, description, location, images, and specs, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior for invalid URLs. For a read operation, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 well-structured with a brief summary, an Args section, and a Returns section. It is written in both Mongolian and English, which increases length but is appropriate for the target audience. The content is front-loaded with the core purpose and each section is concise, though the bilingual format makes it slightly longer than necessary.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the required argument format and enumerates the returned fields, covering the primary usage. It does not address error handling or edge cases, which is a minor omission but not critical for a basic retrieval tool.

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 provides only the parameter name 'url' with no description, and the context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates excellently by defining 'Full listing URL' and giving a concrete example (https://www.unegui.mn/adv/12345_...), which adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific listing' with the resource being a listing on unegui.mn. The verb 'get' and the resource are specific, and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_listings or get_recent_listings, which focus on listing or searching rather than retrieving details for one listing.

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 specifies that the argument is a full listing URL, implying this tool is for when you already have a specific listing's URL. This provides clear context for use, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use search_listings or browse_category instead. This is a slight gap from the top tier.

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