ebay_find_eligible_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 only states 'find items eligible' without explaining what 'eligible' means (e.g., criteria like active listings, buyer interest). It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any authorization requirements, or the behavior for edge cases (e.g., no eligible items). This lack of detail reduces transparency.

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 a single sentence of 8 words, which is very concise. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point. While it is appropriately sized for a simple tool, it sacrifices important details that could be added without becoming verbose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Find' and the resource.

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?

Given the tool has three optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does not provide sufficient context. It does not explain what constitutes eligibility, how to interpret results, or that this tool is typically used before 'ebay_send_offer_to_interested_buyers'. The sibling tools list is large and contains many similar names, making it crucial for the description to be more informative. The description is incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter already has a description (limit, offset, marketplaceId). The tool's description adds no additional semantic meaning or usage context beyond what the schema provides. According to the guidelines, with high coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding items eligible for the 'Send Offer to Buyers' feature. It specifies the resource (items) and the context (eligibility for offers), which distinguishes it from generic listing retrieval tools. However, it could further differentiate from tools like 'ebay_find_listing_recommendations' or 'ebay_suggest_items' that also find items for different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not indicate that this tool is a prerequisite for 'ebay_send_offer_to_interested_buyers' or mention any conditions for usage. Without context, an agent cannot determine the appropriate workflow or when not to use it.

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