ebay_get_product_safety_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without details on authentication requirements, response format, rate limits, or potential errors. As a read operation, it implies non-destructive behavior, but lacks sufficient disclosure.

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 efficiently conveys the core function. It is well-structured and front-loaded, containing no fluff.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose but omits crucial context such as the output format, content of safety labels, and any side effects. For a retrieval tool with no output schema, some indication of the response structure is expected for completeness.

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 parameter is fully described in the schema with an enum and description ('Marketplace ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and no improvement or degradation is observed.

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 action (Get), resource (product safety labels), and scope (for a marketplace). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ebay_get_hazardous_materials_labels and ebay_get_labels by specifying 'product safety'. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a product safety label, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools. Given many sibling tools exist (e.g., ebay_get_hazardous_materials_labels), an agent would benefit from explicit differentiation.

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