list_nft_listings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. The description only states it lists listings but doesn't mention pagination behavior, default ordering, whether it returns all marketplace listings or only the user's, or performance characteristics. For a read/list operation, this is minimal disclosure with no annotations to compensate.

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 compact sentence in Japanese that states purpose efficiently. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation. While minimal, it has zero waste and is immediate about the core function.

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 3 params and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It doesn't mention pagination, sorting default, or what fields each listing contains. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does the minimum. The sibling set includes get_nft_listing which suggests list/detail pairing, but the description doesn't clarify the relationship.

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 100% with all three parameters documented (limit, status, my_only). The schema already provides meaningful descriptions including the default for limit (20) and valid status values. The description adds minimal param context but the schema handles parameter documentation well, so baseline 3-4 is appropriate.

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 'NFT出品一覧' (NFT listing list) and 'マーケットプレイスの出品を一覧表示' (display marketplace listings in a list), which clearly uses a specific verb+resource (display listings). It distinguishes from get_nft_listing (singular retrieval) and related NFT tools like generate_nft_snapshot. However, it's brief and doesn't fully differentiate from potentially overlapping marketplace-related siblings.

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 tool versus get_nft_listing or when to prefer filtering parameters. There's no mention of alternatives, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no context about typical invocation scenarios. The purpose is implied from the name but no explicit usage direction is provided.

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