get_won_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It addresses the lookback window and that older items are dropped, but lacks details on authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The mention of same response shape as get_watchlist is helpful but incomplete.

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 sentences and reasonably concise, covering purpose, underlying API, and a note on response shape. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor improvement could be more structured if parameters were included.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits parameter documentation and lacks guidance on authentication and pagination. The lookback window and API source are good context, but overall completeness is moderate for a tool with three parameters.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention or explain any of the three parameters (limit, offset, host). It adds no semantic meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent to infer usage from defaults.

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 it returns items won or bought via Buy It Now, specifying it as the effective purchase history and distinguishing from siblings like get_watchlist and get_lost_items. It also identifies the underlying API (Trading API GetMyeBayBuying.WonList).

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 context on the default lookback window and that older items roll off, which helps understand when results are available. It also notes the response shape is the same as get_watchlist. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_active_bids or get_lost_items.

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