ebay_get_feed_schedule_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds meaningful scope context the annotations do not: the tool returns required/optional field metadata with defaults, and schedules only exist for LMS_ORDER_REPORT, which needs the sell.fulfillment scope. That scope requirement is real behavioral context not available in structured fields.

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?

A single dense sentence plus a short constraint clause. The verb+resource leads, the return contents follow, and the LMS_ORDER_REPORT/sell.fulfillment constraint is stated compactly with zero filler.

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 one required param, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the API-scope constraint. It stops short of explicitly telling the agent to fetch the ID via the list sibling or noting that non-LMS_ORDER_REPORT feed types will fail.

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% and the schema already documents the scheduleTemplateId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the ID originates from ebay_get_feed_schedule_templates, matching the schema description but reinforcing the data source; it does not add format or validation nuance beyond the schema, keeping it just above baseline.

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 and resource ('Get one Feed API schedule template by scheduleTemplateId') and enumerates what the response contains (feed type, frequency, required/optional schedule fields with defaults). An agent can identify the sibling ebay_get_feed_schedule_templates (plural) as the list counterpart, and the LMS_ORDER_REPORT scope pins down the API surface.

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 implicitly routes to ebay_get_feed_schedule_templates for obtaining the ID, but it never explicitly says when to call this vs. the sibling list tool or when to use the schedule template vs. an actual schedule (ebay_create_feed_schedule). Usage is implied by the required ID lookup rather than stated.

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