ebay_get_active_listings

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context by naming the underlying Trading API, explaining that listings created via UI, Trading API, or REST API are all returned, and mapping ListingType values. It also discloses the OAuth token requirement, though it does not discuss pagination or sort behavior.

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 three short, information-dense sentences: core purpose first, then data provenance and listing-type details, then the auth prerequisite. Every sentence contributes meaning and there is no filler.

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 tool with simple optional pagination parameters, the description supplies the returned fields, API source, listing-type encoding, and auth requirement. Minor gaps are the lack of an explicit seller/account scope clarification and no guidance on paginating through all results, but these are small given the schema and annotations.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and both page and entriesPerPage have descriptions in the schema, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Get'), a clearly defined resource ('all active listings'), and enumerates listing types (fixed-price and auction) and returned fields (SKU, quantity, price, watch count). This makes it distinct from sibling listing actions such as ebay_get_listing and ebay_find_active_items.

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 clearly conveys that this tool retrieves complete active-listing data and notes the required User OAuth token as a prerequisite, giving an agent enough context to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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