depop_item_similar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is public read-only data, uses Depop's dedicated similar-items API, and is paginated up to 150 per page. However, it does not mention rate limits, required auth, return shape, or response size beyond a simple per-page cap, so behavioral transparency is adequate but not strong.

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 only a few clauses, but it is somewhat repetitive: 'Get Depop items similar to a listing' and 'Returns items similar to a given Depop listing' say the same thing, and 'Depop's dedicated similar-items API' is restated in the final sentence as 'Depop's own similar items API'. The useful comparative and pagination details are between the repeated lines.

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 having no output schema or annotations, the description is complete enough for a developer: it states the resource, the behavior, and the advantage of the richer paginated API, while the schema handles all parameter meanings including the opaque cursor semantics. No critical invocation detail is missing for a straightforward read-only lookup.

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 input schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's only parameter-related addition is the 'up to 150 per page' limit, which restates the schema's limit max and does not add material semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get Depop items similar to a listing.' It also distinguishes the tool from the 'small, non-paginated similar items carousel already included in item detail,' making it clear this is the richer, paginated similar-items endpoint rather than a generic item or search tool.

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 explicitly compares this tool to the similar-items carousel that ships with item detail, saying this one is 'richer and paginated upward to 150 per page.' That gives an agent enough context to choose it over the smaller built-in carousel, although it does not name the literal tool or spell out explicitly when to use an alternative instead.

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