getListingDetails

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

No annotations exist, so the description shoulders the burden. It discloses what data is returned (description, seller info, images) and that any supported domain works, but does not mention operational traits such as network dependence, potential failures for removed listings, rate limiting, or auth. For a non-mutating lookup this is adequate but not richly 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?

Single longish sentence with no filler. Each segment adds info: the resource, the domain scope, and the return contents. It could be shortened, but no sentence 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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description gives a high-level overview of return content but not enough detail for an agent to predict response shape, error cases, or exact prerequisites (e.g., a valid existing listing ID). The presence of the sibling searchListings is noted via context but not integrated.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: 'specific listing' implies the listingId param, the parenthetical enumerates domain values, and 'description, seller info, and images' hints at what includeImages and includeSellerInfo control. It does not explain the boolean toggles explicitly or the listingId pattern, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

States a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific OLX listing'), enumerates supported domains, and names the kind of content returned. This contrasts with sibling searchListings, which would be for finding listings rather than inspecting one.

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 use when one wants details on a single known listing, but it does not state explicit conditions, prerequisites (e.g., listing ID format), or when to prefer searchListings. Because the sibling's purpose is left to inference, guidance is only implicit.

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