ebay_get_inventory_tasks

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real value beyond the annotation: it discloses the required OAuth scope ('Requires sell.inventory'), the paging behavior, and the exclusive filter constraint. It stops short of describing the 90-day window limit and result shape, but the added context is solid.

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?

A single dense sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing 'Requires sell.inventory' prerequisite is tacked on and could have been integrated more cleanly.

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 no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the key operational facts an agent needs: feed type, filtering modes, paging, and auth scope. The absence of any hint about returned task fields is a minor gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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 documents all six parameters including their bounds and mutual exclusivity. The description restates the 'not both' constraint and 'limit/offset paging' but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('Feed API active inventory report tasks (LMS_ACTIVE_INVENTORY_REPORT)'), and names the concrete feed type, so the agent knows exactly which task family this returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near siblings like ebay_get_feed_tasks or ebay_get_inventory_task, so the reader must infer the boundary.

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 states the mutual exclusivity of dateRange vs lookBackDays ('not both'), which is actionable filtering guidance. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus the many other task-listing siblings (ebay_get_feed_tasks, ebay_get_report_tasks, ebay_get_order_tasks), leaving the alternative-selection decision to inference.

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