Search listings

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by explaining concrete consequences: promoted listings repeat, high-volume queries drift between pages, and listings can be missed or seen twice across a walk. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs to avoid assuming stable pagination or complete coverage.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a critical pagination caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the warning prominent.

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 tool with 14 optional parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It captures the core purpose and pagination pitfalls but offers no guidance on parameter combinations, defaults, or how to construct a valid search. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but agent-facing invocation guidance remains thin.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only vaguely references a 'search query'. It does not explain any of the 14 parameters such as sort, radius, ad_type, buy_now, min_price, max_price, category_id, or location_id. Parameter names and enums provide some self-evident meaning, but the description itself adds almost no semantic value.

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 resource ('listings') and operation ('matching a search query'), and clarifies it returns only 'one page' of results. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_listing (single listing) and get_shop/find_* by focusing on search over listings. The wording is precise and immediately actionable.

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 this tool is for searching listings and that pagination is involved, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_listing, find_category, or find_location. It also does not mention when not to use it or how to resolve prerequisite IDs. Usage context is clear but exclusions and alternative routing are left to inference.

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