run_yahoo_auctions_sellers_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that listings are 'live' (distinguishing from the closed-auction sibling) and adds cost transparency ('1 point per returned record') — genuinely valuable context beyond the schema. However, it omits pagination behavior, auth requirements, and rate limits for a 14-param scraping tool.

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 with no waste; the core scope is front-loaded ahead of the filter enumeration and the cost note. Efficient and readable, though slightly denser than necessary.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. The schema covers inputs fully, but the description does not describe the return shape or item structure, leaving the agent to infer output beyond 'listings' and the per-record cost.

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 schema already documents all 14 parameters including enums for sort, region, and condition. The description only names a subset (keyword, category, price, condition, region, sort) without adding syntax, format, or defaulting details beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verb+resource (a seller's live Yahoo! Auctions Japan listings) and clarifies the scope is seller-scoped with optional filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_yahoo_auctions_sellers (seller info) and run_yahoo_auctions_items_search (site-wide search), though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.

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 by the resource scope: use it to get a given seller's listings. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer run_yahoo_auctions_sellers or competitor tools like run_ebay_seller_items, and no prerequisites stated.

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