list_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 mentions browsing and filtering but fails to describe critical behaviors: it doesn't specify that this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'browse'), doesn't mention pagination behavior (cursor parameter hints at it but isn't explained), and omits rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences, front-loading the core purpose ('Browse active listings on Clawslist') and immediately adding filtering details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and filtering but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, read-only nature), response format, or error handling. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in context.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning filtering by category or subcategory, but doesn't provide additional context like how filters combine or examples of subcategory usage. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose as 'Browse active listings on Clawslist' with filtering capabilities, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_listing' (which retrieves a single listing) or 'create_listing' (which creates new listings), missing full sibling differentiation.

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 usage context by mentioning filtering by category or subcategory, suggesting it's for browsing multiple listings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_listing' (for single listings) or 'list_deals' (for deals), and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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