ebay_get_advertising_eligibility

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds operationally important authorization context by stating the required OAuth scopes ('sell.account.readonly or sell.account'). It frames the call as a status check rather than a mutation, which aligns with the annotation.

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 definition is short and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is largely redundant with the first ('This allows developers to determine...'), but the OAuth scope line is useful and the overall length is appropriate.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain what the eligibility response contains, such as per-program eligibility flags or status values, which could matter for interpreting results. However, both parameters are fully documented, the auth requirement is stated, and it is a simple read-only check, making the tool invocable.

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 coverage is 100%, with marketplaceId documented via a full enum and programTypes described as a comma-separated list. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource ('seller eligibility status for eBay advertising programs'), clearly stating the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ebay_get_opted_in_programs or ebay_get_privileges, but the advertising-eligibility scope is distinct enough for basic selection.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of related advertising or account tools. The only contextual addition is the required OAuth scope, which addresses authorization rather than tool selection.

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