ebay_get_feed_task_result_file

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

With only readOnlyHint=true, the description adds rich behavioral context: the result is returned as an embedded resource with content type and file name, files above 25 MiB are refused, and OAuth scope varies by feed type (sell.inventory for LMS listing/inventory, sell.fulfillment for LMS_ORDER_ACK/LMS_ORDER_REPORT). This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then packs necessary constraints (status, file types, size limit, auth scopes) into a dense but well-organized sentence with no wasted words.

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 absence of an output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers all critical aspects an agent needs: when to call it, what it returns (embedded resource with content type and file name), size limits, and required OAuth scopes. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single taskId parameter is already documented as coming from the Location of a create call or a task list. The description adds only minor context by noting that order, inventory, and customer service metric task IDs are also valid, which is useful but not essential 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 ('Download') and resource ('result file of a Feed API task'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as ebay_get_feed_task_input_file and ebay_get_feed_task. It also names the task statuses required and the types of reports covered.

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 clearly specifies the condition for use ('once it is COMPLETED or COMPLETED_WITH_ERROR') and notes that order, inventory, and customer service metric task IDs also work. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions beyond the status requirement, but the context is clear.

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