ebay_get_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'get feedback', lacking details on whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format is, or any side effects. The schema parameters imply filtering but the description does not explain behavior beyond the basic action.

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 a single short sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded. It could benefit from a bit more detail, but it avoids verbosity and gets the core purpose across.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return structure, pagination (sort/limit/offset), or how to use the many optional filters. The long list of sibling feedback tools further highlights the need for more context to aid selection.

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 schema already explains all 10 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'by type', which loosely ties to the feedbackType parameter, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what's in 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 clearly states 'Get feedback for a user by type', specifying the verb (get), resource (feedback), and key filter (by user and type). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'leave_feedback_for_buyer' or 'respond_to_feedback', which are write operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ebay_get_awaiting_feedback or ebay_get_feedback_rating_summary. Does not mention prerequisites, required authentication, or typical use cases.

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