get_listing_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It meaningfully discloses that the tool may fall back to summary card data when the full detail page is blocked by anti-bot protection, which is valuable non-obvious behavior. It does not mention auth requirements or return structure, but the fallback disclosure is a strong transparency signal for a read-only tool.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The core capability and identifier options are front-loaded, and the fallback behavior is appended without cluttering the primary purpose.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs, the fallback behavior, and even names summary-card fields. It does not detail the full output shape or mention auth, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool effectively in most cases.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, mainly confirming that either url or listingId can be used; the schema already provides examples and parameter descriptions. No extra semantic meaning is needed for the parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Get full details'), a specific resource ('a single carsales.com.au listing'), and the accepted identifiers (listing id or URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search and comparison tools, since it is explicitly focused on a single listing rather than aggregates.

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 makes the core usage context clear: use it for a single listing's full details when you have a listing id or URL. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_cars or compare_listings, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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