get_listing_registry

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. Clearly states it's a read operation via '[Inventory / read]' and discloses it is a hosted endpoint only and an introspection stub. This is a key behavioral trait, but lacks details on authentication or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first states purpose, the second provides critical context about hosting and stub nature. Every word earns its place.

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 7 parameters, no required fields, nested objects, and no output schema, the description gives a good high-level view including the hosted/stub limitation. It could mention what the response typically contains, but is largely sufficient.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what is in the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description starts with '[Inventory / read]' specifying domain and operation, and names the resource as 'Active listing registry, search, and brand ASIN views.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_listing_quality or get_listing_restrictions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Mentions it's a hosted endpoint only and a local stub, implying limited functionality, but does not state when to prefer this over other read tools.

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