marketplace

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 states 'Get public details', which suggests a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm idempotency, rate limits, or authorization requirements, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single sentence that effectively communicates the core purpose. It is concise but might be overly terse; however, for a simple tool with one parameter, this level of conciseness is appropriate and does not waste words.

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 the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides basic information. However, it omits details about what 'public details' include (e.g., title, price, description), and does not reference sibling tools or output expectations, leaving some gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameter. It merely says 'by its id' without clarifying what the id represents (e.g., listing ID number, text identifier) or its format. This adds little beyond the schema's type and minLength.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'listing', and the scope 'public details', with a specific identifier 'by its id'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_listings' (which searches) and 'get_resale_price' (which gets a specific price).

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 that the tool is used when you have a listing id, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool names.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only indicates that it retrieves a range and mentions the data source, but it does not explain the response format, whether the data is cached or real-time, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. This lack of transparency leaves the agent guessing about important behavioral aspects.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for 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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description fails to explain the return value (e.g., min/max, currency symbol, or example). An agent cannot confidently predict the output format, which is a significant gap.

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%, meaning the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. The description states that the required parameter is a product name and the optional parameter is condition, but it does not elaborate on valid values, examples, or semantics. For a tool with two parameters, more detail is needed to compensate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves an India resale value range for a used product from Bids44's price data. It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'resale value range', and the scope (India, used, from Bids44). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_listing or search_listings, which likely serve different purposes.

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 mentions 'Input: product name, optional condition', which gives some guidance on how to use the tool. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor does it compare with sibling tools to help the agent choose between them.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('Search'), returns up to 10 results, and lists output fields. However, no mention is made of ordering, pagination, or potential behaviors like partial matches.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately following with input/output summary. Every sentence is necessary and no extraneous content.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, inputs, output fields, and result limit. Missing aspects like sorting or pagination are minor given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 description adds value by listing the parameters (query, category, city, maxPrice) and indicating that query is required. It does not provide detailed semantics or examples beyond the schema property names.

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 clearly states the tool searches live Bids44 marketplace listings, specifying that it returns a list of up to 10 items with given fields. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_listing' (single listing) via the plural 'listings' and search verb, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_listing' or 'get_resale_price'. The description only implies its use for searching listings, lacking when-not or exclusion cues.

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