vinted-mcp

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say the lookup is read-only, whether results are ranked or paginated, or how many brands come back. Only the bare purpose is conveyed.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — a single fragment that omits the verb and all operational detail. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially nothing to load.

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 two-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least explain the keyword/category_id interaction and the shape of returned brand IDs. Almost all of that is missing.

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% and neither parameter is explained in the description. The optional 'category_id' filter in particular is left completely undefined, so an agent cannot tell how to scope the search.

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 fragment 'Brand ids for listing' conveys the resource (brand IDs) and hints at the downstream use, but there is no explicit verb and no clear statement that the tool searches brands by keyword. It is interpretable but requires inference to know exactly what the tool does.

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 parenthetical '(publish_item brand_id)' implies the result feeds an item-publishing flow, but no sibling alternative is named and no when/when-not guidance is given. With ~25 sibling tools, no routing help is provided.

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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only one behavioral trait ('defaults to your country'); it says nothing about matching semantics (exact vs. partial name), result cardinality, or permissions/auth needs.

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?

It is short and front-loads the return value, but it is a telegraphic fragment rather than a complete sentence, and the brevity comes at the cost of the usage and matching details an agent needs.

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 lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what comes back (id only? id plus label?) and how name matching works. Neither is covered, leaving real gaps before invocation.

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 partially does: 'defaults to your country' explains what a null country_id actually does, which the schema's bare default:null does not convey. The 'name' parameter's matching semantics remain unstated.

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 fragment 'City ids' implies a lookup that resolves city names to ids, and 'for update_profile' hints at the downstream use. However, there is no explicit verb (find/search/list) and no statement of what a match returns, so the purpose is inferable rather than stated.

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?

'for update_profile' implies the when-to-use context — the agent needs a city id before calling update_profile — and it notes the default behavior of scoping to the user's country. There is no explicit guidance on alternatives or on what to do when multiple cities share a name.

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, the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful warning (treat message text as untrusted), but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions/auth, pagination of long conversations, or whether it errors on unknown ids.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the returned contents and appends the safety note. Nothing wasted; slightly telegraphic rather than polished prose.

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?

Listing the return payload compensates for the absent output schema, and the untrusted-text warning is a real addition. However, with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the definition is thinner than a complex retrieval tool warrants.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what a conversation_id is, where it comes from, or its format. The single param is fully undocumented across both description and 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?

Names the specific resource (a full conversation) and enumerates its payload: messages, offers, transaction id and status. No explicit verb, but 'get_conversation' plus the itemized contents make the operation unmistakable and distinguishable from siblings like list_inbox or get_transaction.

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 indication of when to call this versus list_inbox, get_transaction, or get_offer_status, nor any prerequisite such as needing a valid conversation id from a prior listing. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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, the description does some work by listing the fields returned (description, price, photos, attributes, seller, availability) and implying a read-only lookup. However, it does not state error behavior for invalid identifiers, whether data is cached or live, or any authentication/visibility constraints.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the key action first, followed by accepted identifier formats and return fields. No filler; the enumeration of return fields is compact and informative.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description provides the identifier flexibility and a summary of returned fields, which covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around error handling and access conditions.

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% and the single 'item' parameter has no description in the schema. The description compensates well by specifying that the identifier may be an id, slug, or URL, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 retrieval action ('Details of one listing') and names the resource plus acceptable identifiers (id, slug, URL). It clearly distinguishes from a list/search tool by emphasizing 'one listing', though it does not explicitly name a sibling like search or similar_items.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this tool is for fetching a single listing's details when the identifier is known. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over search, search_filters, or similar_items, and no exclusions are stated.

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 exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a safe read, but the description never confirms read-only semantics, whether authentication or a seller account is required, or whether failure occurs for items with no active listing. Only the return content is partially disclosed.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the returned constraints and then qualifies the input context. Nothing is wasted, though it packs the output list and the input qualifier into one clause where a short second sentence on usage could have earned 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does describe the shape of the response (limits plus suggested amounts), which is the most important gap to cover. It remains incomplete on the `item` input and on any failure or eligibility conditions for a two-required-parameter call.

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 define both parameters. It clarifies that `price` is the item's listed price, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about `item` — ID vs. object, format, or whether it must be an existing listing.

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 names the resource (offer constraints) and enumerates the concrete outputs: min/max price, offers left, and suggested amounts for an item at a given price. That is specific and actionable. It does not distinguish the tool from near neighbors like get_offer_status or listing_options, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_offer_status or listing_options, and no preconditions are given (e.g., must the item already be listed?). The agent must infer all routing decisions from the tool name alone.

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, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the returned content (buyer offers with status, seller offers, transaction id), which implies a read-only retrieval. It says nothing about permissions, whether history is paginated or bounded, or which offer states (expired, rejected) are included.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the payload description is front-loaded before the follow-up action hint. Every clause carries 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does only at a high level (offers plus statuses plus transaction id) without shape, ordering, or completeness guarantees. For a read tool with one required param, this is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent assembling a response.

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% and the single parameter conversation_id has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does so only implicitly by saying the data is 'of a conversation'; it never explains how to obtain a conversation_id or what happens with an invalid one.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: the offer history of a single conversation, including buyer offers with status, seller offers, and the transaction id. This distinguishes it from get_conversation and get_transaction in the sibling list, though the name 'get_offer_status' is narrower than the actual 'offer history' payload.

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 second sentence ('Use the ids with respond_offer / send_offer') describes downstream usage rather than when to call this tool versus alternatives. It implies the read-then-respond workflow, but gives no exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_conversation or get_transaction) and references tools absent from the sibling list.

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 the full behavioral burden. It says the profile is public and mentions optional reviews/listings, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, error behavior, or whether the operation has side effects.

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?

A single efficient sentence front-loads the main resource and then notes optional additions. No wasted text, though it is telegraphic to the point of leaving gaps.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should do more. It does not explain the shape of the profile/ratings response, pagination, failure modes, or parameter details.

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 loosely maps 'member' to user_id, 'reviews' to include_reviews, and 'listings' to include_items, but does not clarify ID format, defaults, or what 'recent' means.

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 resource: a member's public profile and ratings, with optional recent reviews and listings. It is specific about content but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like seller_items or get_item.

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 implies usage by describing optional data, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer when to call get_seller versus seller_items.

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 the full burden. It only defines what a transaction is (item, offers, status, shipment) and says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or 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 a single short phrase, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It lacks a clear action verb and front-loaded purpose, making it terse without being informative.

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 get tool with one required parameter, the description should at least state the retrieval action and explain the parameter. It lists potential return fields but omits the core operation, leaving significant gaps with no output schema or annotations to compensate.

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% for the single required parameter transaction_id. The description makes no reference to the parameter, so it provides no meaning beyond the schema's bare field name.

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 is a noun phrase that lists fields of a transaction, not a verb phrase stating what the tool does. It never says 'retrieves' or 'gets' a transaction by ID, and provides no differentiation from siblings like get_conversation or get_offer_status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the returned data categories and an implicit ownership constraint ('your listings'). It does not cover authentication requirements explicitly, time ranges for the stats, pagination, or error behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that wastes little space. Slightly awkward phrasing around 'daily bump stats when bumped' but overall tight.

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 analytics tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists the main return categories. However, the required parameter is undocumented everywhere and the scope of the stats (time window, ownership enforcement) is left unstated.

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% for the single required 'item' parameter. The phrase 'one of your listings' hints that it must be an owned listing, but the description never states the identifier format (ID vs slug) or any constraints, so it does not compensate for the undocumented 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?

The description names the resource (one of your listings) and the specific data returned: view counts, favourites, who favourited, and daily bump stats. It is distinguishable from list_item_likers, though the overlap with that sibling is not acknowledged.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_item_likers, get_item, or my_items. The only implied context is that it applies to the caller's own listing.

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, the description does disclose the return shape and that the query matches case-insensitively against the path, implying a read-only listing. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior for limit, or whether the full tree is always returned.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the return shape and followed by the filter semantics. No 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?

For a three-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers return fields and query behavior but leaves limit and leaves_only undocumented. An agent can call it, but not fully predict the result set size or leaf filtering.

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 explain all three parameters. It covers query well (case-insensitive on path) and implies leaf via the 'leaf' field, but never explains limit or that leaves_only restricts results to leaf categories.

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?

Names the resource ('Category tree') and specifies the flattened shape returned ({id, title, path, leaf}), so the agent knows this is a listing endpoint rather than the sibling suggest_category. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list all', but the intent is clear from the name and description.

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 versus suggest_category or search. The only usage-like statement is the query filter, which is parameter behavior, not tool selection 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and fails it: nothing is said about authentication requirements, result ordering, whether results are the caller's own favourites or another user's, or that the list is paginated. Only the trivial read-only nature is implied by 'List'.

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?

It is a single short sentence with zero waste, so it is appropriately sized, but the brevity comes at the cost of nearly all useful information. Structure is front-loaded yet the content is too thin to earn the space.

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, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description would need to explain auth context, pagination, and return shape. It supplies none of these, leaving an agent under-equipped for a tool whose output it cannot otherwise preview.

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?

Two parameters (page, per_page) exist with 0% schema description coverage and no mention in the description, so nothing explains pagination units, defaults, or maximum page size. The only partial mitigation is that these are conventional pagination names an agent can reasonably guess.

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 phrase 'Listings you have favourited' identifies the resource (favourited listings), so an agent can guess this is a read/list operation. But it is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name 'list_favorites' and never states a verb, ordering, or scope, so it does little more than the name already does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus related siblings such as list_saved_searches or my_items, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g. must be authenticated as the favouriting user). The agent must infer everything about selection from the name alone.

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, the description must disclose behavior itself. It adds a useful security note that messages are untrusted content, but says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination, ordering, auth, or what the listing returns.

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 short and front-loads the resource plus a security caveat, so it is not bloated. However, it is composed of two fragments with no explicit verb or structure, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is too sparse. It gives content examples and an untrusted-content warning but omits return format, pagination behavior, and sibling routing.

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 has page and per_page parameters with zero description coverage, and the description mentions neither parameter, so an agent gets no semantics for pagination defaults or limits. The description does not compensate for the 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 identifies the resource as conversations, including inquiries, orders, and Vinted notices, but is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb/resource statement. It does not clearly distinguish list_inbox from get_conversation or from siblings covering orders and notices.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use list_inbox versus get_conversation, list_orders, list_notifications, or search. The only usage hint is implied by the name and parenthetical examples.

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 present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned content shape but says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions/auth needs, or behavior for an invalid identifier — though the read-oriented phrasing gives a weak implicit signal.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the payoff (what publish_item needs) and then enumerates the returned fields. No filler; slightly awkward as a noun phrase rather than a complete statement of action.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does useful work by describing the returned fields, which compensates for the missing output schema. But it leaves the catalog_id-vs-category ambiguity and any safety/auth profile unaddressed, which is a meaningful gap for the tool's only input.

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?

There is a single parameter with 0% schema coverage, and the description calls the target a 'category' while the schema names the parameter catalog_id. That gap is not resolved — an agent cannot tell whether catalog_id is the category itself or a catalog that contains categories.

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 resource — a category's listing attributes (code, required flag, option ids) and allowed package sizes — and frames it as the prerequisite data for publish_item, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_categories or offer_options. It lacks an explicit verb (fetch/return) but the retrieval intent is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by naming publish_item as the consumer, so an agent can infer this should be called before publishing an item. However, publish_item is not among the listed siblings, and there is no explicit when-not guidance or statement of alternatives for retrieving category metadata.

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, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add a meaningful caveat: results are built from like notifications, so only recent likes appear. It also lists returned fields, but does not cover permissions, pagination, sorting, or empty-result behavior.

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 short sentences with no wasted text. The core purpose and the recency caveat are both front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the key return fields and an important data-source limitation. Remaining gaps around pagination, auth, and exact item identifier semantics are minor but 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 must compensate. It explains that the single item parameter is optional and filters to one item, but does not specify the expected identifier format or whether it is an item ID, slug, or URL.

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 resource and scope: members who favourited your listings, optionally limited to one item. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_favourites and get_user, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to see who liked your listings, with an optional item filter. The recency limitation is stated, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_favourites or get_user.

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, the description carries the full burden and falls well short: it doesn't confirm this is a read-only operation, doesn't say whether listing marks notifications as read (a real risk for notification endpoints), and doesn't mention auth or ordering. It adds only the content-type enumeration.

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?

One compact sentence with zero filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined concision.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters mean the description should be doing much more. As written, an agent cannot tell how results are paged or ordered, or how this differs from unread_counts/list_inbox.

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?

Both parameters (page, per_page) have 0% schema description coverage and are not mentioned at all in the description. The agent must guess that these are conventional pagination controls and infer the responses' paging semantics.

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 identifies the resource (account notifications) and enumerates the content types returned, so the agent knows roughly what comes back. But it's a bare noun phrase with no verb, and the mention of 'Vinted messages' overlaps with the sibling list_inbox without explaining the relationship, so sibling differentiation is weak.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus unread_counts or list_inbox, which are the obvious near-neighbours in the sibling list. No prerequisites, no note about read vs unread state, and no mention of pagination behaviour.

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, the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Does not perform checkout" usefully signals this is a read-only listing with no side effects, but it omits the default filter (in_progress), how paging behaves, and what the response contains.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the resource and status options. There is minimal waste, though the enum restatement duplicates the schema and the checkout clause is of dubious value here.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource and filter values but leaves pagination semantics, default status behavior, and result shape undocumented.

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 explain both parameters. It expands the status values (in_progress, completed, canceled, all) but adds nothing beyond the enum itself, and the `page` parameter is never mentioned at all.

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?

"Your purchases and their status" states a clear resource (purchases) with an ownership scope ("your"), which implicitly separates it from list_sales and my_items. The verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, and no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 only guidance is the negative clause "Does not perform checkout", which does not route the agent to any alternative (no checkout-style sibling exists in the list). There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_sales, my_items, or search, and no mention of pagination or defaults.

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 exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not disclose pagination/result-size behavior, ordering, or the critical default that only in_progress sales are returned unless status is set. The status enum repetition adds no behavioral context.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and filter dimension front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete statement, which slightly hurts clarity but not economy.

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 2-parameter list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description omits too much: page size/pagination, default filtering behavior, and result shape are all left to guesswork.

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% and the description only restates the status enum values already present in the schema. The `page` parameter is completely undocumented in both places, and the default status behavior is not explained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the resource ("Your sales") and the scope (own sales, implicitly distinct from list_purchases), and enumerates the status dimension. It is clear what data is returned, but it never uses an explicit verb like "list" and does not name a sibling to distinguish itself from.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus list_purchases, get_transaction, or the other sales-adjacent siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the phrase "Your sales".

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 the full disclosure burden. It hints that each entry carries a new-items counter, but says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation (implied only by 'list'), whether authentication is required, how results are ordered, or how 'recent' is defined.

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?

One compact phrase, front-loaded with the resource and the key distinguishing output detail. It is a sentence fragment and leaves 'recent' undefined, but no words are wasted.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is enumerated and one notable return field. It stops short of clarifying what separates 'recent' from 'saved' entries or what the calling context (signed-in user?) is, leaving a small but real 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the empty schema is self-explanatory; the baseline for a no-argument tool applies. The description adds no parameter meaning because there is none to add.

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?

Names the resource precisely ('Recent and saved (alert) searches') and adds the distinguishing detail of 'new-items counters', which separates it from generic search siblings like search or suggest. The listing verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, keeping it 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?

No indication of when to call this versus search, search_filters, or unread_counts, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case purely from the phrase 'saved (alert) searches'.

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 the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that non-public statuses are included, but says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination behavior, ordering, or what the return shape looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical '(status flags)' is slightly cryptic, but overall the description is compact and readable.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers result scope but omits pagination behavior and authentication expectations. It is adequate at minimum but leaves important calling context unstated.

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 is expected to compensate for the page and per_page parameters. It mentions neither, leaving the agent with only the schema's types and defaults and no description-level guidance on pagination semantics.

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 identifies the resource as the caller's own listings and enumerates the statuses included (hidden, reserved, drafts, under review). The verb 'list' is only implicit, and no sibling tool is named, but the scope is specific enough to separate it from public search or get_item.

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?

Usage is implied by 'your own listings' versus the sibling search/get_item tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. An agent can infer the context but is given no routing rules.

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, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuine behaviors: results are compact and must be enriched via get_item, and include_shipping only applies to the first 40 results — a non-obvious truncation the schema would never reveal. It says nothing about pagination behavior, empty-result handling, auth requirements, or rate limits, which is a meaningful gap for a 13-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct load (purpose, ID sourcing, result shape, shipping caveat), with the core purpose front-loaded. The 'Envío desde' quoted term is slightly cryptic without locale context, but nothing is padded or restated.

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 13-parameter, zero-required, no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers purpose, ID sourcing, and result handling but leaves the entire pagination and sorting surface (pages, per_page, order) and the price-range and condition filters unexplained. Adequate to invoke it in the common case, not complete enough to use it confidently.

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 — and it partially does, explaining the provenance and format of catalog_ids, brand_ids, size_ids, color_ids, attributes, and include_shipping. However, text, order, pages, per_page, price_from, price_to, and conditions get no mention at all, leaving over half the parameters to inference from bare titles.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search listings') and immediately differentiates itself from lookups: 'Compact results; use get_item for details.' An agent can tell it apart from search_filters, list_categories, and get_item without opening any schema. It stops short of 5 only because the searchable domain (marketplace listings vs. categories vs. users) isn't spelled out beyond the noun.

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?

Gives concrete prerequisite routing: catalog_ids come from list_categories, brand/size/color ids and attribute codes from search_filters, and details require get_item. That is real when-to-use guidance tied to named siblings. It lacks an explicit exclusion case (e.g., when to prefer suggest or similar_items), so it falls short of 5.

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 the full behavioral burden. It discloses the two modes but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, result volume, how catalog_ids affects scope, or what the response looks like. For an unannotated 4-param tool this is a substantial gap.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the primary mode front-loaded and the conditional filter_code mode second. The only structural weakness is that the parenthetical example list interrupts the main clause, slightly delaying comprehension.

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?

With 4 undocumented params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the shape of the returned filter list and the semantics of text/catalog_ids scoping. It covers roughly the filter_code path and leaves the rest for the agent to guess, which is not enough to call the tool confidently.

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 the description must compensate and only does so partially. It explains filter_code (selects which filter's options to list) and indirectly filter_search ('searching them by name'), but 'text' and 'catalog_ids' — two of four params, including the array param — get no explanation at all. Half the surface remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States the resource (search filters) and gives concrete example codes (brand, size, status, color, video_game_platform), which removes ambiguity about what a 'filter' is here. It also distinguishes two distinct behaviors: listing available filters vs. listing one filter's options. Closest to 5 but the two modes are packed into one sentence rather than clearly separated, so it stops short of fully distinguishing them from siblings like 'suggest'.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Filters available for a search' hints that this precedes a filtered search, and the filter_code clause indicates the drill-down step. But it never says when to call this instead of 'suggest', 'listing_options', or 'find_brand', nor any prerequisite like needing catalog_ids first. Implied usage is the definition of a 3.

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 full behavioral burden. It discloses that listings are 'published' and belong to a member, but it does not describe pagination, permissions, return shape, or other operational traits for a 3-parameter list tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical '(their closet)' adds a useful synonym without bloat.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It gives the basic purpose but omits parameter meanings, pagination behavior, and selection guidance against siblings.

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 explain parameters. 'Member's' gives some meaning to user_id, but limit and pages are completely unexplained, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('published listings'), and scopes it to 'a member's' items. That distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like my_items, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state the difference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_seller, my_items, or search. The purpose implies a use case, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: the state is local, and cookies are never returned (a useful privacy guarantee). However, it does not say whether authentication is required, what happens when the token has already expired, or that the call is strictly read-only, so meaningful gaps remain.

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 short sentences with zero padding, and the primary payload (what state is returned) is front-loaded. The security note about cookies is placed second as a qualifier, which is the right order.

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?

With no output schema, the description must sketch the return contents, and it does list domain, token expiry, and write-enablement. For a parameterless status tool that is close to sufficient; only the behavior on an expired or absent session is unaddressed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed by framing the call as a state read.

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 resource (local session state) and enumerates what it exposes: domain, token expiry, and whether writes are enabled. That is far more concrete than a tautology. It never distinguishes itself from the nearby sibling whoami, which likely surfaces identity from the same session, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. The phrase 'whether writes are enabled' only implies a pre-write check use case, which the agent must infer. Usage is implied by the content rather than stated.

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 the full burden. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, result limits, whether the input item must exist, or what happens with an invalid ID — all relevant for a listing tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it stops short of the detail the schema gaps require.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation leave the description as the only source of behavioral detail — yet it explains neither the input formats nor the shape of the returned listings. Inadequate for a tool whose structured fields are this sparse.

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 both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description hints that a 'same seller' mode exists but never ties it to the `same_seller` boolean, and gives no format or constraint for `item` (ID vs. slug vs. URL).

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?

States a specific resource and relationship: listings similar to an item, or items from the same seller. An agent can tell this apart from get_item (single item) and search (query-driven), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'or other items from the same seller' phrasing implies the two modes of use, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search or get_item, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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 the full behavioral burden, but it only states the autocomplete scenario. It does not disclose return format, read-only behavior, rate limits, or authentication expectations.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the stated 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool the description is still incomplete because it leaves the parameter meaning and sibling routing ambiguous. Without annotations or an output schema, more detail was needed to call it correctly.

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?

There is one required parameter, text, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain that text is the search-box prefix. It does not mention format, minimum length, or how the value is used.

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 phrase 'Search-box autocomplete suggestions' identifies the resource and scenario clearly enough for an agent to understand it returns autocomplete suggestions. It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from sibling tools such as suggest_category or search.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion rules, and no alternatives. It does not say how this differs from suggest_category or when to use search instead.

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 the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: results are ordered 'best first' and each carries a full path plus a leaf flag, which tells the agent both ranking and payload shape. It does not say how many suggestions come back or whether an exact-match miss returns empty, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the return content (categories) and packing ordering and per-item fields into subordinate clauses. No 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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, ordering, and returned fields — enough to call it correctly. It only lacks the result-count/empty-result behavior an agent might want when chaining into a category filter.

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% for the single `text` parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does, via the example "nintendo 3ds console" clarifying that `text` is a listing title/query string rather than a category id or keyword list. It adds real meaning beyond the bare `string` schema, though it says nothing about length, language, or normalization.

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 the resource (categories) and its scope (categories that listings of the given text live in), so an agent can tell this maps free text to categories. It is written as a noun phrase rather than a verb, and it does not single out the nearest sibling (list_categories) for contrast, so it stops 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you supply a listing title to discover its category. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of list_categories, and no note on when this is preferable to plain `search` or `search_filters`, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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 the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a read-only lookup, what it returns (a number? a list?), or whether it requires authentication. Only the broad subject area is disclosed.

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?

Five words with no padding, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. It is front-loaded only in the trivial sense that there is nothing else.

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?

Although the tool is simple and parameterless, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place to learn what comes back. It omits that entirely, leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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?

"Unread messages and notifications" names the subject matter but supplies no verb and does not say whether the tool counts them or returns them. Against siblings like list_inbox and list_notifications, the description gives no basis for telling them apart.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus list_inbox, list_notifications, or get_conversation. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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 exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the data categories returned (available/pending balance, history), which is real behavioral content. However, it says nothing about whether this is read-only, what authentication/session is required, how much history is included, or whether calls are rate-limited.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the returned data, with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information about the result, and it gives just a high-level content summary. For a zero-parameter read tool that is close to adequate, but the shape and scope of 'history overview' (time range, limits) remain undefined.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing further to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies the call needs no arguments.

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?

States the resource (wallet) and the two things it returns (available and pending balance, plus a history overview) in a single specific phrase. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic listings, but it never positions itself against the closest siblings (get_transaction, list_orders), so an agent still has to guess whether 'history' overlaps with them.

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?

Usage is only implied – 'balance and history overview' suggests checking funds or activity, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of when get_transaction or list_orders would be the better call. An agent can infer intent but gets no routing help.

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 the full behavioral burden. It lists returned fields but does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, what happens when unauthenticated, or any rate-limit or side-effect behavior.

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 one compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by a useful field list. It contains no filler or repeated 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?

For a zero-parameter identity tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a high-level field list but omits exact output shape, types, authentication expectations, and error behavior. It is minimally adequate but not fully 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline score for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 identifies the resource as the signed-in member and lists the fields returned, which distinguishes it from the sibling get_user by scope. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement of what the tool does.

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 phrase 'signed-in member' implies using this tool for current-user identity, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as session_status or get_user.

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