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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and reach are covered. The description adds the useful state scope ('currently live and upcoming'), but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume despite the tool exposing session_id/request_number for paging. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the disambiguation of the three sibling tools follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the schema handles category and pagination semantics. The only minor gap is that the description never hints that results are paginated, which an agent might need to know to request further pages.

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%, with the category enum values and both pagination params fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that results are scoped to a category channel, adding no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (List) and resource (live and upcoming eBay Live streams) plus scope (for a category channel). The sibling-naming in the second sentence further pins down exactly what this tool returns versus the singular/items/batch variants.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: this tool for listing streams in a category, ebay_live_stream for one stream, ebay_live_stream_items for a stream's items, and ebay_live_streams_batch to resolve several IDs. Nothing is left to inference about when to pick this over its siblings.

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