ebay_get_email_report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation: no mention of rate limits, required authentication, date range semantics, output format, or page limits. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still contributes almost nothing extra.

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 words. It communicates the core action and API context efficiently. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: no date format specification, no explanation of what an 'email report' contains, and no relationship to the many sibling reporting tools. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without external documentation.

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 baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions ('endDate required endpoint parameter', 'startDate required endpoint parameter') are trivial and add no real meaning. The tool description adds no parameter details (e.g., date format, inclusive/exclusive bounds). The schema provides only the parameter names, not usable semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get email report'. This is clear and not a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like ebay_get_report or ebay_get_promotion_summary_report, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. An agent would not know if this is appropriate for a given task until consulting the schema or other context.

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