ebay_get_feed_tasks

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, but the description adds real context beyond the annotation: which OAuth scope is required per feed type (sell.inventory vs sell.fulfillment) and that sell.marketing and commerce.catalog.readonly feed types are reserved by eBay. Auth prerequisites are exactly the kind of non-obvious detail annotations cannot carry.

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 tight sentences with the core operation and filtering rules front-loaded. The second sentence on OAuth scopes is dense but earns its length by covering auth requirements that would otherwise be invisible; no 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?

For a read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers operation, filters, constraints, and auth scopes. It omits what the returned task records contain and how to chain to ebay_get_feed_task for details, which keeps it short of full completeness.

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 the individual parameter descriptions, including the "do not combine with" notes and the 90-day limits, are already documented. The description mostly restates those same mutual-exclusion rules; only the per-feedType OAuth scope mapping is genuinely additive over the schema, so baseline 3 is right.

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 ("List Feed API tasks") and scopes it precisely to uploads/downloads and on-demand/scheduled tasks. It is clear enough to separate from ebay_get_feed_schedule(s) by contrast, but never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ebay_get_feed_task (singular) that fetches one task, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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 concrete filtering rules with mutual-exclusion constraints: feedType or scheduleId (not both), dateRange or lookBackDays (not both), plus limit/offset paging. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when this tool is the wrong choice, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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