Search eBay listings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: results are unverified provider candidates, no inferred grades or certification, prices are asking/bid and never sold comps, shipping may be unknown, and listing text is untrusted data. These are exactly the trust and interpretation caveats an agent needs before acting on results.

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?

Front-loads the core action in four words, then layers caveats in dense declarative clauses with no filler. Every sentence (candidate-not-match, no inferred grades, asking price not sold comp, unknown shipping, untrusted text) carries distinct decision-relevant information.

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?

With an output schema present, return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the risky interpretation points (match confidence, price type, shipping, untrusted text). It leaves marketplace_id behavior and pagination/sort semantics unaddressed, which is a minor but real gap for an 8-parameter search.

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 coverage is only 25%, but the description compensates for the highest-value parameters: it explains what belongs in q for comic searches and what category_ids and aspect_filter actually narrow (seller-provided aspects). sort, limit, offset, and marketplace_id get no description-level treatment, though their names, enum, and defaults are largely self-explanatory.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Search active listings") and the title anchors it to eBay, so it is clearly distinct from get_ebay_item (single-item fetch) and get_connection_status. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation relies partly on the tool name rather than the description text.

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?

Gives concrete query construction guidance (for comics, put title/issue/variant/grading terms in q; use category_ids and aspect_filter to narrow seller-provided aspects), which tells the agent how to use it well. It never states when to prefer get_ebay_item instead or any exclusion condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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