ebay_get_feed_schedule_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: only one valid feedType namespace and a required OAuth scope (sell.fulfillment). That is real context beyond the structured fields, though return shape is not described (no output schema).

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 front-loads the verb and resource, then packs paging, the sibling handoff, and the feasibility constraint without waste. Every clause earns its place.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers scope, paging, the downstream link, and auth prerequisites. Not describing the returned template object is acceptable given no output schema is declared.

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 coverage is 100%, so feedType, limit, and offset are already documented in the schema, including the LMS_ORDER_REPORT constraint and the 1-500 / default-10 paging bounds. The description adds the 'required' emphasis but no syntax or format beyond what the schema provides, 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 (List) and resource (Feed API schedule templates), scoped by a required feedType. This cleanly separates it from the singular sibling ebay_get_feed_schedule_template and from ebay_get_feed_schedules, which the agent can infer without opening any schema.

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 the follow-on path ('use a template ID with ebay_create_feed_schedule') and a hard precondition ('Schedules exist only for LMS_ORDER_REPORT, which requires sell.fulfillment'). It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-singular-template rule, but the routing context is clear.

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