ebay_get_order_tasks

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds the required OAuth scope (sell.fulfillment) and the paging mechanism (limit/offset). It does not describe return contents or default behavior beyond what the schema states, but it adds real context beyond the annotation.

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 resource and identifier, then the selection constraints, then paging, then the auth requirement. 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 and no required parameters, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it: resource scope, mutually exclusive filters, paging, and required auth. Only the shape of returned task data is left unspecified, which is minor for a list endpoint.

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 every parameter including the mutual-exclusion constraints. The description restates those constraints but adds no new syntax, defaults, or format detail, making it a baseline case.

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 (List) and resource (Feed API order report tasks, LMS_ORDER_REPORT), which is enough to distinguish it from the many sibling task tools. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling ebay_get_order_task (singular) or ebay_get_report_tasks, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explicit parameter-combination rules: feedType or scheduleId, not both; dateRange or lookBackDays, not both. That is genuine usage guidance for selecting an invocation. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over ebay_get_order_task or other task-listing siblings, so it isn't a 5.

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