search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that, such as whether results are paginated, what entity types are included, or any rate-limit considerations. Since the annotation covers the primary risk, a 3 is appropriate, but the description does not enrich behavioral understanding.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could have added a brief clarifying clause to distinguish from siblings without becoming verbose.

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's generic name and the presence of many specific search tools in the sibling list, this description is too sparse. It does not specify whether it searches only active items, all inventory, or something else, nor does it mention result format or pagination. With no output schema and no usage guidance, an agent may misapply it.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 'Search for eBay inventory items' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (eBay inventory items), making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from many sibling search tools like ebay_find_active_items or ebay_get_active_listings, so it misses the opportunity to disambiguate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternatives (e.g., ebay_find_active_items, ebay_find_completed_items, ebay_get_inventory_items). The description gives no context about scope, filters, or which sibling it complements or replaces, leaving the agent to guess.

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