ebay_create_customer_service_metric_task

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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so effectively: it discloses asynchronous execution, the 202 response, returned taskId and Location, the sell.analytics.readonly scope, and the CURRENT-evaluation limitation. It does not contradict 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently layers prerequisites, response behavior, and follow-up steps. It is dense and slightly run-on, but nearly every clause earns its place given the nested schema and multi-step workflow.

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?

For a complex asynchronous task-creation tool with no output schema, the description supplies all needed context: required parameters, evaluation constraint, authentication scope, response details, and the polling/download continuation path. An agent has enough information to invoke and follow through correctly.

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 in detail. The description largely restates those parameter rules (feedType, schemaVersion, filterCriteria values, acceptLanguage default) without adding meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 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?

The description uses a specific verb (Create) and names the exact resource (an asynchronous Feed API customer service metrics report task), including the required feedType. This clearly distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like ebay_create_feed_task and the read-side ebay_get_customer_service_metric_task.

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?

It explicitly says to check ebay_get_customer_service_metric first to avoid tasks with no evaluation, and then describes the follow-up workflow: poll ebay_get_customer_service_metric_task and download with ebay_get_feed_task_result_file. This gives clear when-to-use and sequencing guidance.

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