ebay_get_ads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond naming the API. It does not disclose filtering or pagination behavior, whether campaignId is a strict scoping constraint, or what the response contains. There is no contradiction with 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 a single sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it relies heavily on the schema for context.

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 six-parameter read endpoint with no output schema, the description is thin: an agent must infer that ads belong to a campaign, how the optional filters combine, and what response shape to expect. The readOnly annotation and schema make the tool minimally callable, but the selection and filter semantics are left unstated.

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 each parameter is at least named in the schema. However, the schema descriptions are thin ('limit optional endpoint parameter'), and the tool description adds nothing about how campaignId, listingIds, adStatus, and pagination relate. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema nominally covers parameter meaning.

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 clear verb ('get') and resource ('ads') and identifies the API domain (eBay Marketing API), so an agent can tell this is a read operation for ads. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as ebay_get_ad or ebay_get_ads_by_inventory_reference, which prevents a 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of ebay_get_ad, ebay_get_ads_by_inventory_reference, or the bulk ad tools. The only clue to scope is the required campaignId in the schema, but the description names no alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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