run_yahoo_auctions_items_closed_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact absent from the schema — '1 point per returned record' (a billing/cost trait) — and clarifies that returned items include realized sold prices. It says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or auth.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the cost note appended. Efficient, though the mid-sentence filter list is somewhat enumerative and could be trimmed since the schema already covers those filters.

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 14-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, the result content (sold prices), and the cost, but omits pagination behavior (start_page/max_items semantics) and the absence of an output schema means return shape is only loosely implied.

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 all 14 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only summarizes a subset of filter families (sold-price, condition, region, seller-type, sort) and adds no syntax, format, or unit detail beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (search completed Yahoo! Auctions Japan auctions) and scopes it to sold items with actual final prices. The word 'completed' plus 'price each item actually sold for' cleanly separates it from the active-listings sibling run_yahoo_auctions_items_search without naming it.

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?

Usage is implied: search by keyword, optionally narrowing with sold-price, condition, region, seller-type and sort filters. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when-not to use it, and no pointer to the active-auction sibling, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the word 'completed'.

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