ebay_get_email_preview

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds only the API context ('through the eBay Marketing API'). It does not disclose output format, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral trait beyond 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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise but slightly thin; the API reference is somewhat redundant with the ebay_ prefix, though not harmful.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is minimally sufficient: an agent can identify the action and the required ID. However, it does not clarify what a 'preview' returns or how this differs from the adjacent email campaign tools, leaving selection and expectation-setting partially incomplete.

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% because the single emailCampaignId parameter has a description, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description itself adds no param semantics. The schema's description is largely tautological ('required endpoint parameter'), but the parameter name and requirement are discoverable.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'email preview' and identifies the eBay Marketing API, so an agent can tell what operation is intended. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ebay_get_email_campaign or ebay_get_email_report, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the word 'preview'.

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 versus the many email campaign/report siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. An agent must infer selection entirely from the tool name.

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