get_listing

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive and open-world profile, yet the description adds real value: it declares the access scope (only the authenticated user's listing, not arbitrary listings) and warns that listing text is untrusted data rather than instructions, which is a genuine prompt-injection caution an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the read action and field list, with the safety note placed second. No filler, though the field enumeration is a slightly dense run-on.

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?

No output schema exists, so enumerating returned fields is essential and is done here; the untrusted-data warning is a meaningful addition. What is missing is the not-found / not-owned case and any confirmation that access is scoped by ownership, which matters for a lookup keyed only by uuid.

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 single 'id' parameter (uuid) is undocumented structurally. The description implies the id identifies one of the caller's own listings, which is a modest clarification, but it adds nothing about format or behavior for unknown/foreign ids.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read ... your user's listing') and enumerates what is returned: status, moderator comment, revision and photo IDs. The 'your user's' qualifier separates it from public listing lookups and from siblings like list_my_listings and get_listing_photo, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

Use is implied — fetch one of the caller's own listings by id — but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_my_listings or get_listing_photo, and no guidance on what happens if the id belongs to another user or does not exist.

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