ebay_get_feed_task_input_file

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the 25 MiB size refusal, the embedded-resource return format, that eBay supplies the content type and file name, and the per-feed-type OAuth scope requirements. These are operationally important traits not present in the 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the exclusion and return/limit details. The OAuth scope sentence is dense but earns its place by linking scope to feed type; slightly verbose but well organized.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return as an embedded resource with content type and file name, plus a hard size limit and the auth scope. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result; nothing material is missing.

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% for the single taskId parameter, and the schema already documents its origin (Location of a create call or a task list). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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+resource: download the file previously uploaded to a Feed API task. It clearly differentiates from the sibling ebay_get_feed_task_result_file by emphasizing 'previously uploaded' (the input file) rather than the result, and it scopes the operation via feed-type exclusions.

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 explicit when-not guidance by naming LMS_ORDER_REPORT and LMS_ACTIVE_INVENTORY_REPORT as unsupported feed types, and ties the required OAuth scope to specific feed types. It does not explicitly contrast with ebay_get_feed_task_result_file, but the 'previously uploaded' framing implies the distinction.

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