get_listing_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at behavior through 'minimum useful' (suggesting lightweight/summary data), but omits critical operational details like caching, auth requirements, or what happens if the listingId doesn't exist. The mention of 'minimum' is the only behavioral cue beyond the schema.

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?

Single sentence, 10 words, front-loaded with no filler. While appropriately concise for the sentence structure, the extreme brevity is inadequate given the complete lack of schema documentation for the two parameters.

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 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits parameter semantics, doesn't clarify the output structure despite having an output schema (which reduces the burden slightly), and lacks usage guidance. A 'brief' tool with enum options needs more context.

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%—neither 'listingId' nor 'detailLevel' have descriptions. The description fails to compensate by not mentioning parameters at all. It doesn't explain the 'compact' vs 'full' enum values, the expected format for listingId, or that listingId is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('listing context'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_conversation_context' by clarifying this retrieves context 'tied to conversations or reservations.' However, 'minimum useful' is vague and doesn't specify what data fields are included.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'get_reservation_brief' or 'get_conversation_context'. It implies usage through the 'tied to' phrasing but lacks explicit when-to-use criteria or guidance on choosing between 'compact' and 'full' detail levels.

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