run_yahoo_auctions_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully enumerates the payload (price, bids, condition, category, shipping, bidders, seller) and discloses a cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run'). It still omits error behavior for invalid/expired ids, auth requirements, and any rate limits.

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-loaded with the verb and resource, and the cost note follows at the end. The middle field enumeration is long but each item conveys actual return content rather than filler, so it 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return content, and it does so with a reasonable field list. For a one-parameter lookup this is close to complete, though it could mention what happens with an invalid or ended auction.

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 single 'item' parameter (auction ID or URL, with example d1236130164) is already fully documented. The description restates 'id or URL' without adding format, validation, or edge-case detail 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?

Specific verb (Get) plus a precisely scoped resource: one live or completed Yahoo! Auctions Japan listing retrieved by auction id or URL. The word 'one' implicitly separates it from the many sibling search endpoints, and the returned-field list makes the operation concrete.

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?

'by auction id or URL' implies this is a direct lookup when an identifier is already known, and 'live or completed' hints that sibling searches cover discovery. However, no sibling is named and no explicit when-not/alternative guidance is given, so the agent must infer the boundary with run_yahoo_auctions_items_search and run_yahoo_auctions_items_closed_search.

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