grailed_similar_listings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses the typed not-found error for deleted/sold/never-valid ids and explains the id provenance (from search, sold-listings, or collection results). It doesn't explicitly state read-only semantics, pagination, or response shape, but for a lookup tool the error behavior is the highest-value disclosure and it's present.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but sentences 1 and 2 are partially redundant — both state that similar listings are returned, with sentence 2 adding only the shelf-provenance detail. The id-provenance and error sentences are tight and earned, but the opening pair could be merged without losing meaning.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the two things most likely to trip up an agent: where the id comes from and the not-found error case. Return shape is only glossed as 'the listings,' which is acceptable for a list-returning tool, though a brief note on the response structure would have made it fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by explaining where a valid id comes from ('from a search, sold-listings, or collection result's own id field') and what happens with an invalid id. This enrichment of the id parameter justifies an above-baseline score.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get listings similar to a Grailed listing') and adds a distinctive provenance detail ('the same related-items shelf shown on grailed.com's own listing-detail page') that clearly separates it from search or suggest tools. However, it never explicitly contrasts against sibling tools like grailed_search, grailed_suggest, or grailed_listing, leaving differentiation implicit rather than named.

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?

Usage context is implied: the agent should call this when it wants Grailed's own platform-generated related-items shelf for a known listing id. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rules or named alternatives, even though siblings like grailed_search and grailed_suggest serve related discovery purposes an agent might confuse this with.

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