discogs_listing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about authentication (Discogs marketplace data typically needs a token), rate limits, or whether the lookup is a safe read. The mention of 'shipping to the logged-in user' hints at auth context but stops short of stating requirements.

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 tight sentence fragment with zero filler, and the most discriminating detail (it is one listing, not a collection) comes first. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still fails to state the operation or document the id argument. For even a simple one-parameter tool, the agent lacks the verb and the parameter meaning needed to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, and the description never mentions listing_id, its format, or where to obtain it. For the single required parameter it must compensate for the schema gap and does not.

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 names a specific resource ('One marketplace listing') and enumerates its contents, so the agent can tell it apart from discogs_search (which searches) and discogs_release (a different resource). However, it is a noun fragment with no verb, so it never actually states the operation (fetch/retrieve by id), leaving the purpose inferable rather than explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as discogs_search or discogs_release despite four Discogs siblings in the tool set. The agent must guess when this single-listing lookup is appropriate.

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