List My Items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that results are limited to the authenticated user's items and selected country profile, but it does not describe pagination behavior, auth side effects, or any limitation beyond the schema. For a read-only list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the usage examples are relevant and compact. It could be slightly tightened since the title already conveys 'List My Items', but there is no meaningful filler.

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 rich nested input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's scope. It does not explicitly cover when-not-to-use or sibling tool distinctions, but those are more of a usage-guideline gap than an invocation-completeness 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?

The nested schema already documents limit, offset, status, account, and site_id with descriptionsyb. The description adds illustrative natural-language-to-parameter mappings, especially for site_id and status, which is helpful. However, the context signal reports 0% top-level schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate for all parameters, keeping this at baseline.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('items'), and clear scoping ('owned by the authenticated user', 'given country profile'), so an agent can distinguish it from broader search tools. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to rule out alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 ownership scope and usage examples imply when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance such as 'use search_items for global search' or 'use get_item for a single item'. The examples clarify site_id and status mapping but do not contrast with alternatives.

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