ebay_get_feed_schedules

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation: the only supported feed type and the required sell.fulfillment scope, which an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the critical constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted wording.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema parameter coverage, no output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description supplies everything needed: the action, required parameter, paging behavior, and the only valid feedType with its permission requirement.

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 the input schema already documents feedType, limit, and offset, including their defaults and constraints. The description reinforces that feedType is required and that limit/offset provide paging, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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: listing the seller's Feed API report schedules for a required feedType with limit/offset paging. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as ebay_get_feed_schedule (singular), ebay_create_feed_schedule, and ebay_delete_feed_schedule.

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?

It gives important usage context: schedules exist only for LMS_ORDER_REPORT, and that feed type requires sell.fulfillment. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or when not to use this one, but the constraint is clear and actionable.

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