get_listing_details

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 explicitly states 'Read-only; never contacts the agent or modifies anything,' which covers safety and side-effect concerns. It does not detail error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits, but for a simple read operation, these are less critical. The disclosure of read-only behavior is a strong positive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. It wastes no words, delivering the key purpose and relevant constraints in a compact, scannable format. Every sentence earns its place.

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) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers input formats and behavior. It could mention error cases (e.g., invalid ID) or prerequisites like authentication, but these are not essential for a basic read-only lookup. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, so the description suffices for successful 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 input schema only shows a 'listing' string with no description. The description adds crucial meaning by clarifying the accepted formats: 'a full Property URL or a bare numeric listing id such as "54646556".' This goes beyond the schema and provides concrete examples, making the parameter self-explanatory.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch full details for ONE Zameen.com property listing.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'ONE' (vs. search-based tools) and by noting it is read-only, separating it from messaging or mutation tools. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 gives clear context on what inputs are valid (full URL or numeric listing ID) and explicitly states it is read-only and never contacts the agent. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., 'for multiple listings use search_properties'). The context implies these boundaries but does not spell them out.

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