get_listing_issues

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral context. It does not disclose permissions, side effects, rate limits, or the nature of the output (e.g., whether it lists errors, warnings, or scores). The existence of an output schema is not leveraged.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but overly sparse. It lacks essential details and does not front-load the key purpose clearly. Every word is present but insufficient for effective tool selection.

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 the domain (listing quality issues) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is too brief. The output schema exists but is not referenced, and the description does not clarify how the tool fits into common workflows.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions. The tool's description fails to add meaning to the parameters 'sku' and 'marketplace'. It does not explain what values are valid or how they affect the results.

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 'Issues de calidad de un listing.' which translates to 'Quality issues of a listing.' It implies fetching quality issues but is vague about what constitutes 'issues' and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_listing_content' or 'get_product_details'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_listing_content' or 'check_listing_restrictions'. There is no mention of prerequisites or contextual cues.

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