get_listing_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it retrieves info, without mentioning response format, error conditions, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. This is a minimal description that leaves the agent without insight into side effects or output expectations.

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, concise Korean sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, exactly what a short tool description should be.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what 'detailed info' includes (e.g., price, seller, location). It only states 'detailed info', leaving the agent uncertain about the return payload. The tool is simple, but the description is too sparse to be considered complete.

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 schema already has 100% coverage, describing articleRef as '게시글 ID, URL, 또는 slug (예: p7mskunj8ik8)'. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, but the schema is clear enough, so a 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?

Description clearly states the action '조회합니다' (retrieves) and the resource '당근마켓 게시글 상세 정보' (Carrot Market post detailed info). It distinguishes from siblings by implying a single listing detail lookup versus search or summary operations.

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 like search_listings or summarize_search_market. The description does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing a specific articleRef obtained from a search, nor does it contrast with sibling tools.

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