depop_shop

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full safety/disclosure burden. It does usefully disclose that data is public and sourced from Depop's shop pages, implying a read-only, low-risk call. However, it says nothing about pagination, listing limits, request failure, or whether the returned 'current listings' are the complete shop inventory, which is significant in a tool that returns an entire seller's shop.

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 sentences, each purposeful. The first names the action and object; the second enumerates the output and optional filters, then closes with the provenance note. There is no filler, no restating of the tool name, and no repeated information from the schema.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should the carry more contextual weight. It does outline the return payload (profile fields and listings) and points to the public source, which is useful. Yet it omits a mention of the sizes filter, any pagination or listing cap information, and any caveat about shops with zero listings, leaving moderate ambiguity for an agent that wants to exhaust a seller's entire inventory.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter completely. The description adds value by summarizing many filter categories in plain language ('discount' for on_sale, 'colour' for the colours list), but it omits 'sizes' and does not clarify composite values. Since the schema is already rich, the description provides useful but not necessary reinforcement.

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 and resource ('Get a Depop seller's shop') and immediately clarifies the resource's meaning: seller profile plus current listings. The sentence distinguishes it from item/search-focused Depop siblings even without naming them, since the agent is told exactly what kind of object comes back.

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 establishes a clear context for use — you want a shop's profile and listings at once — but it never states when NOT to use this tool or points to alternatives such as depop_item, depop_search, or depop_search_sellers. With a large sibling list containing many Depop endpoints, the routing depends on implied scope rather than explicit guidance.

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