ebay_get_listing_violations_summary

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

The description discloses that the tool always fails with a clear message. While it doesn't specify the exact error, it is sufficiently transparent about the expected behavior. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it meets the need.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the decommissioning status. Every part is essential; there is no waste. It is optimally structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool is decommissioned, the description provides enough information: it states it always fails, gives a reason (API shut down), and offers a manual alternative. No output schema or further details are needed for this context.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (complianceType) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter or its meaning. Even though the tool is decommissioned, the description adds no value for the parameter.

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 the tool is decommissioned and always fails. The tool name includes "listing_violations", and the description mentions "Sell Compliance API", which implies the original purpose. This is adequate for an agent to understand it was about listing violations but is now non-functional.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent that the tool always fails and provides an alternative (manual process via Seller Hub). This is excellent guidance on when not to use the tool and what to use instead.

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