get_dealer_listings

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'current inventory' (data freshness) and 'Same card shape as search_listings' (output format), which is useful. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or requires authentication, but for a listing tool these may be less critical. The provided info is moderately helpful but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose and key parameter are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the output shape is mentioned in the second. Every word contributes value; it is exemplary in brevity and structure.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and hints at return format via 'Same card shape as search_listings'. It does not explain pagination behavior, sort options, or potential errors. Given the low schema coverage, more context would be beneficial, but the description is adequate for basic invocation.

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 only 33% (only customerId has a description). The tool description repeats the customerId context already in the schema ('from get_watch's sellerIds') and provides no additional meaning for the 'page' or 'sort' parameters. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving those parameters under-explained.

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 the tool lists a dealer's current inventory by customerId, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It references get_watch as the source of the ID, adding precision. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_listings, though the name and the customerId reference imply a narrower scope.

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 tool should be used when you have a dealer's customerId from get_watch, providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_listings or list_brands, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the customerId source.

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