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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful fact that this submits an asynchronous 'Builder 任务' rather than returning data directly, which reconciles the non-read-only hint, but it omits task lifecycle, auth prerequisites, rate limits, and any side effects.

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?

Trigger conditions are front-loaded, which is good, but the opening enumerates near-synonyms ('ebay 信息、eBay 商品信息、eBay 产品信息、eBay 类别商品、eBay 店铺商品') that add bulk without information. The mode list duplicates the enum already in the schema.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the caller gets back (e.g., a task ID for later polling via scraper_task_status). It describes input modes and extraction targets but is silent on return values and follow-up task handling, leaving a gap for a task-submission 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents url, count, keywords, file_name, and the spider_id enum with per-mode defaults. The description merely restates the four spider modes and extraction scope, adding no syntax, format, or default semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (eBay product/listing data) and the action (extract + submit a collection Builder task), listing concrete data types (price ranges, seller details, auction records, stock, reviews, shipping). It is clearly an eBay-specific scraper, but it never names or contrasts sibling scrapers (amazon_product, walmart_product, google_shopping_info), so differentiation is left to the domain name alone.

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 the trigger condition explicitly: eBay info combined with collect/scrape/crawl/get/extract verbs. This is solid when-to-use guidance, but it offers no when-not-to-use or alternative routing (e.g., when to prefer a search tool vs. this Builder task).

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