sellers_list

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 does disclose a genuinely important constraint: tags must be Arabic tag names, which will change call behavior. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, response shape, or whether the result set is exhaustive or page-limited, leaving the agent to guess at the operational contract.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Sellers for a tag'), followed by the use-case context and the one essential constraint. Slight redundancy in the 'Required:' phrasing, but it reads naturally and every clause 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?

For a low-complexity tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, vertical context, and the key input constraint — enough for a basic call. What is missing is any mention of pagination semantics or what the response contains, which leaves a modest but real gap for an agent deciding whether this tool answers its query.

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 must compensate. It adds the critical Arabic-language constraint for the required 'tags' parameter, which is non-inferable from the schema alone. However, it says nothing about the 'page' parameter (integer with default 0), and the 'Required:' phrasing duplicates structured schema information rather than adding meaning.

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 conveys the resource (sellers) and the filter dimension (tag) in a concise phrase, and the parenthetical 'used by real-estate / business / investment pages' adds scope context. It lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Fetch', so the operation is implied rather than stated, but the resource-and-key pairing is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like related_tags (which operates on tags themselves) and user (which is a single-user lookup).

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 'used by real-estate / business / investment pages' phrase provides an implicit usage signal: this tool is for seller discovery within those verticals. However, there is no explicit 'use when...' guidance and no mention of alternatives such as search or related_tags, so an agent must infer when this is the right tool rather than being told.

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