run_ebay_item_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It adds useful facts: the search covers active listings only and costs 1 point per returned record. However, it omits pagination behavior, rate/credit details beyond the per-record note, and what the result structure looks like beyond named fields.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted text. The cost note is useful and concise. The colon phrase is slightly ambiguous between returned fields and search dimensions, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 9-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough to understand purpose, scope, returned fields, and per-record cost. It could be stronger with sibling routing guidance or pagination/result-count context, but it is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 9 parameters, including enums for sort, condition, and buying format. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning keyword-based search; the baseline of 3 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 a specific verb and resource: search active eBay listings by keyword. It also names the returned fields (title, price, condition, seller summary), which clarifies the tool's output. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from eBay siblings like run_ebay_item or run_ebay_seller_items, 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?

The description implies the tool is for keyword searches of active eBay listings, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. With many eBay sibling tools available, an agent receives no routing help for choosing between keyword search, item lookup, seller items, or category browsing.

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