Get Listing History

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 does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor any limitations such as pagination or authentication requirements. The phrase 'every observation, every price change' hints at comprehensiveness but lacks explicit 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?

The description is two concise clauses with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. Every word contributes to defining the tool's function and scope.

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?

Despite having an output schema and a simple single-parameter tool, the lack of annotations means the description should explicitly state that this is a read-only operation and any constraints. It does not, leaving behavioral expectations unclear for an agent deciding whether to invoke it safely.

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 description coverage is 100%, fully documenting the listing_id parameter as the digits in the marketplace URL. The description adds no additional parameter information, meeting the baseline for high 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 states 'Full timeline for one listing' with a specific scope ('every observation, every price change'), which clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (listing history). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_daily_digest or get_watchlist by focusing on a single listing's timeline.

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 implies usage for a single listing's history but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to. No sibling tools are referenced, so the agent must infer from the name and description that it is for a specific listing rather than a digest or watchlist.

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