Services list my sales

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

The description accurately represents a read-only, paginated listing operation and clarifies the status semantics. The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already cover side-effect transparency, and the description adds useful behavioral detail without contradicting the 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, packing purpose, status semantics, distinction from a sibling tool, and follow-up workflow into a few focused sentences 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?

The description provides enough context for correct invocation, including pagination, status behavior, and what kind of records are listed. It does not describe the response shape, but no output schema is present and the core usage context is sufficiently covered.

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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds valuable semantic clarity, especially the meaning of 'active' as a combined status and the relationship between status values and the listing workflow.

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 lists seller-side sales that still require work, and explicitly contrasts it with services_list_open_requests, making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool as the polling mechanism for fixed-price listings, explains why fixed-mode purchases do not appear in open requests, and indicates the follow-up actions (services_start_work then services_submit_deliverable).

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