Get Listing

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the implied read-only nature of 'Get'. It does not mention potential errors (e.g., missing listing), authentication requirements, side effects, or any operational nuances. The description adds minimal value beyond what 'get' implies.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action 'Get store listing'. It contains no wasted words and is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It doesn't clarify that it returns a single listing for the specified language or any error conditions, but the straightforward read nature and schema coverage make it acceptable. With no annotations, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with clear explanations (language code examples, package name), so the baseline for high coverage is 3. The description only ties the 'language' parameter to the purpose but does not add additional parameter details, which is acceptable given schema completeness.

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 it gets a store listing for a specific language, combining a specific verb ('Get') with a resource ('store listing') and a modifier ('for a specific language'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_all_listings' (retrieves all) and 'update_listing' (modifies). It is unambiguous and specific.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_all_listings' or 'update_listing'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The description only states its function without any directional guidance.

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