run_yahoo_auctions_sellers

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 disclose the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run') and the returned profile fields, which is genuine behavioral value, but it omits permission/auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior for an invalid seller.

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 sentences, zero waste: the resource and return fields come first, the cost note last. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the cost, which is enough for a one-parameter read lookup. It falls short only on failure modes and whether the seller argument accepts any URL form or a constrained pattern.

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 the single parameter already documents 'Seller ID or URL' with an example. The description's 'by seller id or URL' adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (Yahoo! Auctions Japan seller profile), and the two acceptable identifier forms. The enumerated return fields — display name, rating count, positive-feedback percentage, badges, profile message — clearly separate it from siblings like run_yahoo_auctions_sellers_items and run_yahoo_auctions_sellers_reviews.

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 use case (look up a seller by ID or URL) but never states when to prefer this over the sibling seller tools (items, reviews, reviews_summary) or what happens if the seller is not found. Usage is inferable from the resource name rather than stated.

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