Get listing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral policy not present in the annotations: answer strictly from returned fields and refuse/redirect rather than guess when data is absent.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the grounding and fallback rules. Nothing is redundant and every sentence changes agent behavior.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs: what comes back ('full record' incl. description) and how to behave when the record lacks the answer. It could briefly note behavior for a missing/invalid id, which keeps it from a 5.

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 100% and the single id parameter is documented with an example ('HH-1001'), so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond it, which matches the baseline 3 for a fully documented parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Return the full record of one listing') plus what the record contains ('including its description text'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling search_listings by scoping to a single record, though it never names the alternative explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear grounding rule ('Answer only from fields present here') and an explicit when-not path ('If the answer is not in the record... hand off with reason not_answerable_from_listing instead of guessing'), which routes the agent to the hand_off_to_human sibling. It does not state prerequisites for obtaining the listing id, but the context of use is clear.

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