get_nft_listing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. The description only states it fetches details but doesn't disclose return format, error behavior on nonexistent IDs, permission requirements, or any side effects. Since this is a read operation and no annotations exist, the description should clarify the read-only nature and response characteristics, which it fails to do.

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 extremely brief (one clause) and is not verbose, but it's also under-specified relative to what an agent needs. It's concise but borders on truncated — no sentence about purpose context, return value, or relationship to list operations. Conciseness scores lower when brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

This is a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, so relative simplicity exists. However, the description fails to add context around what NFT listing details are returned, how this relates to list_nft_listings, or what constitutes valid listing_id input. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more weight than it does.

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 100% — the single parameter listing_id is documented as '出品ID' (listing ID). The description adds the dimension that this ID refers to an NFT listing but provides no format or provenance guidance (e.g., how to obtain it, whether it's a UUID). With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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 'NFT出品詳細 — 特定のNFT出品の詳細情報を取得' (NFT listing details — get details of a specific NFT listing). It identifies the verb ('取得'=get) and resource (NFT listing), but does not distinguish from the sibling tool list_nft_listings or describe what '詳細情報' (detailed info) includes. The purpose is clear but lacks specification of what constitutes the details or how it differs from list 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 vs list_nft_listings or other list/get siblings. The tool does not state prerequisites, typical scenarios, or alternatives. For a fetch-by-ID tool, some context about requiring a listing_id obtained from list_nft_listings would be helpful but is absent.

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