get_ebay_listings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Get', but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or that it returns a list of listing objects. It also does not mention pagination, sorting, or any rate limits. For a simple get operation, this is acceptable but not thorough; a 3 reflects the absence of any explicit behavioral caveats.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and includes two illustrative examples. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail. It is concise and immediately informative, earning full marks for 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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, so the description should clarify what the response contains. It states that it returns 'listings' but does not specify fields (e.g., listing ID, title, price) or the shape of the response. It also does not mention how 'limit' affects the output. For a simple list tool, this is a moderate gap; an agent might need to infer the response structure. Given the low complexity, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The schema already describes the 'status' parameter with an enum and a short description, and the tool description reinforces its meaning with 'active or sold'. The 'limit' parameter has no schema description and is not mentioned in the tool description, but its purpose (limiting the number of results) is self-evident. Since schema coverage is 50%, the description partially compensates for status but not for limit, which is a minor gap. Overall, the description adds some value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the missing limit explanation.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'eBay listings', and further specifies the two possible statuses (active/sold) with concrete example questions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_inventory_summary or get_latest_prices, which focus on different data. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 provides clear usage context through example questions ('what do I have listed right now' or 'what has sold recently'), which effectively tells an agent when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the examples and the tool's focus on listings make the appropriate scenario obvious. A small deduction for not explicitly stating when not to use it, but the guidance is strong.

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