get_my_items

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 usefully discloses the authentication requirement, that results are paginated via limit/offset, and what fields hydrate each entry, but says nothing about permissions beyond auth, rate limits, or error/edge behavior. Solid context, though a few gaps remain for a no-annotation 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?

Front-loads purpose, then routing, then filter semantics, then pagination/return shape in a compact block with no filler. Slightly dense in the middle clause, but every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description fills both gaps: it covers auth, pagination controls, and the return shape (id, title, status, price, currency, permalink). An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description exceeds it by explaining the semantics of each status value ('active' published and visible, 'paused' temporarily hidden, 'closed' finished; items with sales usually end here)—meaning the enum labels alone don't convey. It also confirms limit/offset drive pagination, adding a small amount beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the authenticated seller's own listings') with scope ('own listings') that immediately separates it from marketplace-wide siblings. It also names search_products as the contrasting tool, so the agent can pick correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('whenever the user asks about my listings/ads/products') and when not to ('for marketplace-wide search use search_products instead'). The alternative is named along with the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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