get_rental_listing_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without any information about permissions required, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate and leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It avoids redundancy and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's function.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling or response format, which are crucial for a retrieval tool. While the purpose is clear, the absence of usage guidelines and parameter details makes it insufficient for reliable agent 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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context for 'listing_id'. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is used to identify a rental listing, but it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid ID (e.g., format, source) or any constraints. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter meaning unclear.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific rental listing by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_rental_listings' by specifying retrieval of a single listing via ID rather than multiple listings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'get_property_record_by_id' or 'get_sale_listing_by_id', which slightly limits differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid listing ID), exclusions (e.g., not for sale listings), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_property_record_by_id' or 'get_sale_listing_by_id'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection in a server with multiple similar retrieval tools.

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