mma_my_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 adds the authentication requirement ('needs your API key') and implies a read-only operation via 'List.' It does not disclose potential gaps like pagination, result limits, or error behavior, but for a simple zero-parameter list tool, the auth note provides meaningful context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the core action, scope, and a prerequisite without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (0 params), the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), and the auth note, the description is largely sufficient. The only minor gaps are unspecified behaviors like pagination or rate limits, which are common for list operations but not critical for this simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the rubric sets a baseline of 4 when params = 0. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since the input schema is empty and there's nothing to elaborate beyond scope ('your own account').

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 action ('List') and the resource scope ('listings under your own account'), which distinguishes it from siblings like mma_search (all listings) and mma_get_listing (single listing). However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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—this tool retrieves only your own account's listings, and it flags the API key prerequisite. Yet it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g., mma_search vs. mma_my_listings), so it stays at implied usage level.

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