get_watchlist

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It reveals the underlying API (GetMyeBayBuying with WatchList container) and explains pagination translation. It also mandates prior authentication flow, providing transparency beyond a simple 'get' statement.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loaded with the main purpose. While verbose, every sentence adds value and the docstring format is appropriate for the complexity.

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 only 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers authentication, pagination, param details, and return structure. It could mention error handling or default host behavior, but it is largely complete.

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 description adds detail not in the schema: limit range (1-200), offset behavior (Trading API pages from 1), host defaulting to default_host. It also documents the return structure comprehensively, exceeding the 0% schema coverage baseline.

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 returns the authenticated user's watched items, using a specific API call. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_to_watchlist or remove_from_watchlist.

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?

While the description indicates the tool is for retrieving watched items, it does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when to use this vs. other retrieval tools like get_active_bids or get_won_items. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided.

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