ebay_create_order_task

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false; the description adds substantial context beyond that: asynchronous semantics, the HTTP 202 response, the two terminal task states, and the required sell.fulfillment scope. This is far more than the annotation layer conveys.

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 imperative verb and resource are front-loaded, and each subsequent clause (params, response, polling workflow, scope) carries functional weight. It is dense and slightly run-on, with minor restatement of schema constraints, but no genuinely wasted sentence.

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 mutating, nested-parameter task-creation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: required fields, response shape (taskId and Location), the correct follow-up tools, and the required permission. Nothing material 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 nested task/feedType/schemaVersion/filterCriteria structure is already fully documented in the schema. The description largely restates those constraints (1113 or higher, 10-day window, ACTIVE/COMPLETED) without adding syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so the 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 verb and resource (create an asynchronous Feed API order report task) and scopes it precisely with the required feedType LMS_ORDER_REPORT. This distinguishes it from the many other task-creation siblings (ebay_create_report_task, ebay_create_feed_task, ebay_create_inventory_task) without needing to open any 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?

It lays out the full lifecycle: what to pass, that eBay answers 202, then explicitly routes to ebay_get_order_task for polling until COMPLETED/COMPLETED_WITH_ERROR and ebay_get_feed_task_result_file for the download. Alternatives and next steps are named rather than left to inference.

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