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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the return format (JSON with listings) and implies pagination via the 'page' parameter. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only, though the term 'browse' implicitly conveys this.

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 organized into Args and Returns sections, with each parameter explained concisely. The bilingual repetition (Mongolian and English) adds slight redundancy but is not excessive. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose statement.

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 presence of an output schema, the return value is already covered, so the description need not explain it in detail. The tool is simple and the description provides category keys, subcategory guidance, and pagination. Usage guidelines could be more explicit, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a browse 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 schema has 0% description coverage and no enums, so the description compensates well. It lists all valid category keys, provides a concrete subcategory example (vehicles → cars_for_sale, car_parts), and specifies the page default. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 the tool's function: 'Browse listings in a specific category on unegui.mn.' The verb 'browse' plus resource 'listings in a specific category' precisely defines the scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_listings or list_categories.

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 provides some usage guidance by referencing list_categories for obtaining subcategory keys, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_listings or get_recent_listings. The context is clear but exclusions are missing.

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

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.

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the tool returns JSON across all categories and that limit has a default of 20 and max of 50, but it does not explain ordering guarantees, pagination, error behavior, or authorization needs. This is adequate but not rich.

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 Args and Returns sections and is front-loaded with the main purpose. The bilingual text (Mongolian/English) is useful but doubles the length, so it is not maximally concise.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, limit behavior, and return format. It lacks sibling differentiation and notes on ordering or errors, but overall it is sufficiently complete for basic invocation.

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 only parameter, limit, is fully explained in the description as the maximum number of listings to return, with default (20) and maximum (50). This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare schema, which only shows type and default.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies a concrete resource ('the most recent listings from the unegui.mn homepage'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_listings, list_categories, browse_category, and get_listing_details by focusing on the homepage's latest listings across all categories.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_listings or browse_category. The context of 'homepage' implies a use case, but there are no references to alternatives or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with bilingual names) and the default language (Mongolian), adding useful behavioral context. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but 'list' makes that obvious, and no side effects or limitations need to be disclosed for such a simple operation.

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 concise and well-structured: the action is stated in the first line, followed by the return format in a separate 'Returns' section. Every sentence is purposeful, with no waste.

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 zero-parameter tool that lists categories, the description is complete. It states the scope (all categories and subcategories), the platform, and the output format. The presence of an output schema covers the return value structure, so no further detail is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. The description adds value by noting the output language details, which is beyond the empty schema and helps the agent interpret results.

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 'List all available categories and subcategories on unegui.mn', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browse_category or search_listings by focusing solely on the category hierarchy.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there exclusions mentioned. The name and description imply it should be used when the agent needs the full list of categories, but this is not spelled out, leaving usage merely implied.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output format (JSON with title, price, URL, location, date) and explains parameter defaults (page default 1, category optional). It also provides example queries to illustrate expected inputs. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or potential limitations, which would make it more transparent. The return format is explicitly stated, so this is above average.

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 clear Args and Returns sections, and the main purpose is stated first. It is concise for the information provided, though it contains duplicate text in Mongolian and English, which increases length. Every sentence adds value (purpose, parameters, return format), so it earns a 4.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects for a search tool: what it does, all parameters, and the return format. An output schema exists, so explaining return values in detail is not necessary. It lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., no results, pagination behavior) and does not differentiate from siblings, but for a moderate-complexity tool with clear parameter documentation, it is sufficiently 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. For each parameter (query, category, page), the description provides meaningful semantics: query is the search term with examples, category includes an explicit list of valid keys, and page indicates the page number with default. This goes far beyond the schema's bare field names and types.

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 the tool's function: 'Search unegui.mn for listings matching a query.' It specifies the resource (unegui.mn) and action (search), and the examples ('Toyota Prius', '2 өрөө орон сууц') make the use case clear. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_categories or get_recent_listings, which serve different purposes.

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 implies when to use this tool: when searching listings by a keyword query. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., using browse_category to explore categories or get_recent_listings for latest posts). Sibling tools are present, but no comparison or guidance is provided. This is a clear but not explicit usage context.

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