ebay_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about return formats (JSON/CSV) and potential errors (missing API key, rate limit, request failure). While it doesn't contradict annotations, it could have mentioned the pagination limit or rate limiting details more explicitly, but overall it provides adequate additional transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections: a summary sentence, bullet points for when to use/not use, a compact parameter list, and explicit return/error sections. It is concise with no wasted words, and the most important information (purpose and usage) is front-loaded.

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 description covers all necessary contextual information: the tool returns structured data with specified fields, supports pagination and filtering, handles errors, and provides output format options. Since there is an output schema (mentioned in context), the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and constraints.

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?

Although the schema has detailed descriptions for each property, the tool description summarizes all parameters in the 'Args' section, explaining their purpose and constraints. It covers all 11 parameters (query required, optional page, items_per_page, etc.) and adds context like the output_format default. Given that schema description coverage is 0% (per context, likely referring to the top-level 'params' description), the description fully compensates by providing complete parameter documentation.

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 retrieves parsed eBay search results for a query, listing the returned fields (title, price, condition, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'ebay_product' by specifying when not to use it (when you have an item ID), making the purpose very clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (e.g., discovering listings, price research) and when not to use it (already have an item ID, with a direct alternative: use 'ebay_product'). This fully satisfies the usage guidelines dimension.

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