search_listings

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 states the tool returns product listings matching search criteria but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a search tool with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic function.

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 and front-loaded in a single sentence, clearly stating the purpose without waste. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters or constraints, but it efficiently communicates the core function.

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 complexity of 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective tool use beyond basic input handling.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying search criteria are used, which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 searches for active Etsy listings and returns matches, specifying the resource (Etsy listings) and action (search). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_shops' or 'get_trending_listings' beyond mentioning 'active listings,' leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_trending_listings' or 'search_shops.' It mentions 'active listings' but doesn't clarify if this excludes other types or when to prefer it over siblings, offering only basic context without exclusions or alternatives.

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