ebay_get_charity_orgs

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses the auth model (application/client-credentials token, no user consent needed) and the marketplace scoping plus pagination limits — genuinely useful context not available in structured fields. It does not describe result ordering or response shape, but the safety and auth profile is well covered.

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-loads what the tool does and then packs constraints and auth into a few dense sentences with no filler. Slightly overstuffed but every sentence carries usable information.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the required inputs, mutual exclusion, marketplace restriction, pagination, and credential requirements. Only the shape of returned charity records is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 q, limit, offset, marketplaceId and registrationIds are all already documented, including the mutual-exclusivity rule. The description mostly restates the schema's own constraints rather than adding new semantics, 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 (search) and resource (charitable organizations supported by eBay for Charity), and clarifies the two lookup modes (keyword q vs. registrationIds). An agent can distinguish this from the singular ebay_get_charity_org sibling based on the search/by-IDs framing.

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?

Gives clear operational conditions: supply exactly one of q or registrationIds, marketplaceId limited to EBAY_US/EBAY_GB, and pagination bounds. It does not explicitly contrast with ebay_get_charity_org (single-org lookup), so alternatives are implied rather than named.

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