get_active_bids

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns active bids including winning and outbid items, and explains the response shape and empty result meaning. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only tool this is adequate.

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 concise, with three sentences. The key purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description covers the basic behavior and response shape, especially since an output schema exists. However, the lack of parameter documentation is a significant gap, and the description does not fully leverage sibling tools to differentiate usage contexts.

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 has 0% description coverage for 3 parameters (limit, offset, host), and the description does not explain any of them. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names and defaults, providing no guidance on what these parameters control.

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 'Return auctions where the user has a currently-active bid' and provides specific details about the eBay API source and inclusion criteria. It distinguishes well from siblings like get_watchlist and get_won_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 mentions the response shape is the same as get_watchlist and explains how to interpret empty results, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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