ebay_get_expired_categories

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safe read-only nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that only mapped (merged or split) categories are returned and explains the meaning of an empty success (HTTP 204). It does not mention authentication needs or rate limits, but for a simple taxonomy lookup this is adequate.

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 appropriately sized and front-loads the core purpose in the first clause. The parenthetical detail about fromCategoryId to toCategoryId and the follow-up sentence about empty results earn their place, though the 'Taxonomy API:' prefix is slightly redundant.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and return semantics, including the special empty-success case. It omits explicit when-to-use guidance, but that gap is minor for a taxonomy lookup.

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% for the single parameter categoryTreeId, and the schema already explains its meaning and example. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'list expired leaf categories in a category tree with the active categories that replaced them.' It is clear enough to distinguish from generic category tree tools by its focus on expired categories and replacement mappings. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tool (e.g., ebay_get_category_tree), which would be needed for a full 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes the return behavior, such as 'empty success (HTTP 204) means the tree has none,' but never states the conditions under which an agent should call this tool.

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