Find comparable listings

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: it 'tries several search phrasings,' removes duplicates/accessories/broken/mismatched items, and returns both kept comparables and rejection reasons. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context with no contradiction.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, input guidance, and behavioral detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, every sentence adds information, and there is no fluff.

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 tool with 18 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the output format (kept items plus rejection reasons) and the core filtering logic, which is essential context. It does not address default behavior or explicitly compare with get_similar_items, but the schema and annotations cover most parameter semantics and safety profile.

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 high (89%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds mild semantic value by identifying 'brand, model, capacity, size, colour' as photo-visible facts, but does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states it 'Finds listings genuinely comparable to an item you are about to sell' and details the filtering and output, making the purpose specific. However, the sibling 'get_similar_items' exists and the description does not explicitly differentiate itself from that similarly named tool.

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?

It provides context: use when about to sell an item and give facts visible in photos, and mentions returning rejection reasons 'so you can justify the price to the user.' No explicit exclusions or comparisons with alternatives like search_items or get_similar_items are given.

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