get_listing

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error responses (e.g., if locale is invalid). Basic transparency is provided but insufficient for advanced safety context.

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?

Single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the core action. Efficient, though minor additions (e.g., clarifying output or constraints) could enhance clarity without bloat.

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 simple get operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the main purpose but omits return value format, possible errors, and any prerequisites. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more detail would benefit completeness.

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 50%: locale has a brief description, projectId has none. The description mentions 'project' and 'locale' but does not add meaning beyond the schema. It fails to clarify what projectId represents or what constitutes a valid locale, leaving the agent with gaps.

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 it retrieves store listing/ASO text for a project in one locale. The verb 'Get' and resource 'store listing / ASO text' are specific, and the tool's read nature is implicitly distinguished from siblings like push_to_google_play and update_listing, though not explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_listing or list_store_languages. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names alone.

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