run_yahoo_auctions_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits beyond the schema: the billing model ('Flat 5 points per successful run') and the returned content (lowest current and buy-it-now price plus matched live auctions). It stops short of mentioning auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the operation and resource, appends the return payload, and ends with the cost note — every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully covers what is returned and the pricing implication, which is most of what an agent needs. Auth, throttling, and error behavior are absent, but those are secondary for a simple lookup.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents 'product' as an ID or URL with an example. The description merely echoes that ('by id or URL') without adding syntax, format constraints, or lookup behavior beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full 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?

States a specific verb and resource — a Yahoo! Auctions Japan catalog product retrieved by ID or URL — and even names what is returned (lowest current and buy-it-now price plus matched live auctions). It is clear on its own, but with nearby siblings like run_yahoo_auctions_items and run_yahoo_auctions_items_search it never explicitly distinguishes the catalog-product lookup from those.

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 rather than stated: the accepted input (catalog product ID or URL) tells the agent this is a direct-lookup tool, not a search. It does not say when to prefer it over run_yahoo_auctions_items_search or other Yahoo Auctions siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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