get_listing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly signals a read-only operation via 'Read' and provides meaningful context: 'as the web editor loads it' and 'every content field and the current status.' It does not mention error behavior or authentication, but for a simple get operation this is sufficient.

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 sentences, no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence concisely clarifies the parameter that needs it. Every word 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, in what form, and the item_type values. Minor gaps such as ownership assumptions or error cases are low-risk for this operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It directly explains the key parameter: 'item_type is prompt, persona or skill,' giving the agent the allowed values. The other parameter, item_id, is self-explanatory by name and the schema title, so the description effectively covers the semantic gap.

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 opens with a strong verb and specific resource: 'Read one of the seller's listings in full.' It also clarifies scope ('every content field and the current status') and differentiates itself from sibling list tools like list_my_listings by emphasizing a single listing with full editor-level detail.

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 usage: use this when you need the complete editor view of a single listing rather than a summary. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference required.

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