get_user_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention pagination behavior, total result counts, whether only active listings are returned, ordering of results by default, potential rate limits, or whether this requires the seller to be public/authenticated. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, 'currently for sale' hints at status filtering but leaves much undisclosed.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without filler. It could arguably add a brief usage note, but the current length is appropriate and front-loaded.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, the description is functional. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from noting pagination/aggregate behavior and the default ordering (newest_first). It's adequate but leaves behavioral details undocumented.

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%, with each of the 4 parameters having a description. The description adds context that the items are 'currently for sale', which implies a listing-status filter, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('items currently for sale') and identifies the scope ('by a specific Vinted user/seller'). It distinguishes from siblings like search_items (global search) and get_item_details (single item lookup), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 clarifies this is for a specific seller's current listings, which implicitly contrasts with the global search_items tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternative tools for related tasks like browsing a user's sold/archived items or getting all items across sellers.

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