gb_listing_status

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 clearly declares the tool read-only and defines both output fields. It also discloses that remote is null when there is no listing to ask about, which is the key behavioral edge case.

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 dense sentences with the core read-only comparison front-loaded, followed by field definitions and a usage condition. No filler or repeated schema information.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description still covers the return semantics (state and remote values, null behavior) and the recommended usage context. This is enough for an agent to decide when to call and how to interpret the result.

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%, and the description never explains serial_no beyond the tool's general reference to 'ONE gun's listing'. It doesn't clarify serial format or whether it is the POS serial, so the parameter meaning is left mostly to inference.

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?

Opens with a precise statement of what the tool reports: POS vs GunBroker view of one gun's listing, explicitly marked read-only. The state/remote distinction and the 'before pushing or ending' mention differentiate it from sibling write/sync tools. No ambiguity about the resource it operates on.

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 this before pushing or ending anything if the two might disagree' gives an explicit call scenario. It doesn't name specific alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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