ebay_create_document

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds useful context: it's a staging operation (not a final upload), requires sell.inventory, and returns a documentId for a subsequent call. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to previously staged documents, whether this creates a persistent resource, or any rate limits. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no filler. The core action, key parameters, return value, downstream tool, and required permission are all packed efficiently. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the staging purpose, the return value, the downstream step, and the permission requirement. The only minor gap is not describing the response format or any side effects, but the description is sufficient for an agent to call it 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 both parameters with examples (ENGLISH, USER_GUIDE_OR_MANUAL). The description adds the relationship between the parameters and the staging purpose, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb ('Stage') and resource ('a listing document'), and names the two key parameters (documentType, languages). It also mentions the return value (documentId) and the downstream sibling (ebay_upload_document), which helps distinguish it from the many other ebay_* tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the closely related ebay_create_document_from_url, so it's not a full 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 the usage context: this is the first step in a two-step document upload flow, and the returned documentId is meant for ebay_upload_document. It also states the required permission (sell.inventory). It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives like ebay_create_document_from_url, but the staging-then-uploading flow is clear enough.

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