ebay_create_feed_schedule

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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description carries strong extra context: the 201 success response, that scheduleId and Location are returned, the per-feed-type schedule quota (error 160031), the required sell.fulfillment scope, and the LMS_ORDER_REPORT constraint. This is exactly the load-bearing detail annotations do not provide.

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-loaded with the core purpose and generally dense with facts, each clause earning its place (template dependency, response, quota, scope, feed-type limit). It is a single long run-on sentence, which slightly impairs scanning, but no throwaway content.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers prerequisites, request composition, response codes, returned identifiers, quota limits with the error code, and required auth scope. Nothing material an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by enumerating the key fields and, more importantly, tying them to the template (schemaVersion and trigger fields are conditional 'as the template requires'), which helps the agent understand their interdependency beyond the per-field schema text.

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 (Create) and resource (recurring Feed API report schedule), and the 'subscribes to an ACTIVE schedule template' framing cleanly separates it from the get/update/delete_feed_schedule siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly specifies the prerequisite: the schedule must subscribe to an ACTIVE template, and it routes the agent to ebay_get_feed_schedule_template to read it. It also restricts the applicable feed type (LMS_ORDER_REPORT). It does not explicitly contrast with a one-time alternative like create_feed_task, so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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