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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It notes pagination behavior and a soft cap on limit, but does not clarify that the operation is read-only or mention any other behavioral traits, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Very concise, using a clear docstring format with Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 2 parameters and an output schema (not shown but present), the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. It explains return structure ('JSON envelope, data.listings'), which is sufficient with the output schema present.

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%, so the description adds meaning beyond the schema. It defines shop_id as 'Etsy ShopID' (repetitive but confirms type) and explains limit as a 'soft cap' with default 200 and max 1000, providing valuable context not in the schema.

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?

Clearly states 'List active listings for a shop, paginating transparently' which specifies the action (list), resource (active listings), and scope (for a shop, with automatic pagination). Distinguishes from siblings like etsy_get_listing (single) and etsy_search_listings (search across shops).

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?

Implicitly describes usage for listing active listings of a shop, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions among the 7 sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return structure (JSON envelope, products, offerings) and that data can be null, but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise, with a clear header sentence and structured Args/Returns sections. No redundancy or unnecessary information.

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's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, parameter, and return value. It lacks usage guidelines, but for a straightforward fetch operation, 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 single parameter listing_id is described as 'Etsy ListingID', adding meaning beyond the schema title 'Listing Id'. The description explains its purpose clearly, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('inventory record'), specifying it includes variations and offerings for a listing. It distinguishes from siblings like etsy_get_listing (listing details) and etsy_get_active_listings (list of listings).

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 explains what the tool returns but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided, though the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'fetches' (read-only) and returns null if not found, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then clearly lists args and returns. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the essentials. It mentions what the tool does, the argument needed, and the return format including the null case. Could mention error handling beyond null, but not necessary for basic completeness.

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 meaning beyond the schema by specifying 'Etsy ListingID (integer)' for the listing_id parameter. This clarifies the parameter's type and scope, which is valuable given the schema only provides 'Listing Id' and type integer.

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 'Fetch the full record for a single listing,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like etsy_search_listings (which searches multiple) and etsy_get_active_listings (which gets multiple active listings).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses the behavior (fetch receipt with transactions), fallback for shop_id, and return format. However, it omits information 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?

Description is short and structured with Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary words, but the overall structure is clear and efficient.

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 no annotations and an output schema (stated but not shown), description covers basics: purpose, parameters, return format. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs. search_orders, which is a gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains receipt_id is an integer and shop_id is an integer with a fallback to default. This adds value, but could provide more detail on source of IDs.

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 states 'Fetch full receipt (order) detail including transactions' with a clear verb and resource. It specifies that it includes transactions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like etsy_get_listing and etsy_search_orders.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like etsy_search_orders. The description only mentions fallback behavior for shop_id but does not provide context for tool selection.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses return format (JSON envelope with data field), example fields (name, currency_code, etc.), and null behavior on not found. Lacks error or auth info, but sufficient for a simple read operation.

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?

Three sentences with args/returns section. Every sentence adds value: purpose, parameter, return details. No fluff.

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 simple tool (one param, no nested objects, output schema exists), description covers purpose, parameter, return structure and field examples. Sufficient for an agent to understand usage and outcome.

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?

Only one parameter (shop_id) with 0% schema description coverage. Description adds 'Etsy ShopID (integer)' context, clarifying it's the shop identifier. Compensates for missing schema documentation.

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 states 'Fetch the shop record for a single shop,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like etsy_get_shop_stats (stats) or etsy_get_listing (listing entity).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Does not mention alternatives or conditions like 'use this instead of etsy_get_shop_stats when only basic shop info is needed.'

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format but omits any mention of side effects, error conditions, authorization requirements, or rate limits, limiting transparency.

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 a clear structure using Args and Returns sections; every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 two parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains both parameters and the return structure, but lacks details on error conditions or authentication requirements.

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 substantial meaning beyond the input schema, explaining shop_id as 'Etsy ShopID' and period as a lookback window with format '<N>d' and maximum 365 days, compensating for 0% schema coverage.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'aggregated stats (orders, favorers, active listings, revenue) for a shop over a given period', and it is distinct from sibling tools that handle listings, inventory, orders, or searches.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return format (JSON envelope with ok, data, results, count) and an enforced limit of 100, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or any read-only guarantee.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return format adequately. It lacks explicit comparison to siblings, but is otherwise 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains all three parameters: query as free-text, shop_id as optional scoping, and limit with a cap. This adds meaningful detail beyond the schema names.

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 'Search active Etsy listings by keyword' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'etsy_get_listings' by focusing on keyword search and optional shop_id scoping.

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?

Provides context that omitting shop_id queries the global index, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like 'etsy_get_active_listings' or give when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses transparent pagination handling, limit cap (1000, with 100 per page), default shop_id fallback, and return format. It does not mention read-only nature or rate limits, but for a search tool the disclosed behaviors are substantial.

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 a summary sentence followed by bullet-pointed parameter details. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive, fitting all necessary information into a compact format.

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 output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers return structure ('JSON envelope with data.orders'). All parameters, default behaviors, and pagination are explained. No critical gaps remain for a search tool with moderate complexity.

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 extensive meaning beyond the input schema: date format (ISO), inclusive window semantics, shop_id fallback to ETSY_DEFAULT_SHOP_ID, status enum values, limit with transparent pagination. Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates, making each parameter's purpose and constraints clear.

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 searches receipts/orders by date window for a shop. 'Search receipts (orders) created in the inclusive [date_from, date_to] window for a shop.' is a specific verb+resource+scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like etsy_get_order or etsy_search_listings, leaving ambiguity about when to use this versus alternatives.

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 implies usage for searching orders within a date range, with optional filters. Yet it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or references to sibling tools for alternative use cases. The context of searching by shop and date window is clear but lacks exclusionary criteria.

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