mma_get_listing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of communicating behavior. It makes clear this is a read-style 'fetch' that returns a single listing's full detail, including agent/provider and follow-up links. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or failure behavior, but for a simple one-item get operation it is reasonably transparent.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and scannable. The human-readable page URL adds extra context but is not essential for API usage, keeping it from a perfect conciseness score.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, result scope, notable included fields, and even provides a related human-facing resource. With an output schema present, it does not need to enumerate every return field, so this is a complete enough description for selection and invocation 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?

The schema only defines one required string 'id' with no per-parameter description, so the phrase 'by id' provides the essential mapping from the parameter to the listing identity. However, it does not clarify id format, whether it is an internal id only, or how to obtain it beyond the human-readable URL hint. This is adequate but not value-adding beyond the schema.

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 action ('Fetch one listing by id'), a clear resource ('listing'), and a meaningful scope ('full detail') that distinguishes it from broader or sibling tools. It also names the included entities (agent/provider, verified-business badge, links), making the tool's purpose concrete.

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 the right context—when you have a listing id and need full listing details—but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to sibling alternatives like mma_search or mma_get_provider. The usage signal is clear but not fully spelled out.

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