ebay_get_order_task

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read, but the description adds genuine context beyond annotations: the status state machine (QUEUED, IN_PROCESS, then COMPLETED or COMPLETED_WITH_ERROR when the file is ready) and the required scope 'sell.fulfillment'. What it omits is any note on polling behavior or how the eventual result file is retrieved.

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 that front-loads the verb+resource and appends the scope requirement. Every clause (taskId, statuses, fields, scope) earns its place with 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does reasonably well by naming status, filter criteria and timestamps plus the auth scope. It stops short of explaining asynchronous file readiness or downstream retrieval, but is largely sufficient for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

There is a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents taskId fully ('Feed task ID, from the Location of a create call or a task list'). The description only restates 'by taskId' without adding provenance or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one Feed API order report task'), and crucially scopes it to a single record by taskId, distinguishing it from the plural sibling ebay_get_order_tasks. The enumeration of returned fields (status, filter criteria, timestamps) makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is strongly implied by 'Get one ... by taskId' versus siblings like ebay_create_order_task and ebay_get_order_tasks, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is stated. The reader must infer the retrieve-vs-create and single-vs-list distinction from the name.

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