ebay_get_shipment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known, and the description goes well beyond it by disclosing the limited-release gating, the exact OAuth scope not present by default, and the re-consent requirement. It also names the fields returned. Only minor gaps (e.g., error behavior when shipmentId is unknown) remain.

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 retrieval purpose and returned fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the prerequisites following. The scope sentence is dense but every clause (limited release, scope URL, default omission, re-consent steps) carries operational value, so it is not padding.

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 one-parameter read tool with a full schema, the description is essentially complete: it covers what is returned, the auth/scope requirement, and the limited-release restriction. Since no output schema exists, enumerating the return fields is a real contribution; only fine-grained error or pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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% and the single parameter is already documented in the schema (including its origin from ebay_create_shipment_from_shipping_quote). The description only says 'by shipmentId', adding no format or constraint meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a shipment by shipmentId') and then enumerates the returned payload (purchased rate, costs, addresses, tracking number, label URL, cancellation status), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It is clearly separable from siblings like ebay_create_shipment_from_shipping_quote and ebay_get_shipping_quote.

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?

Provides clear calling context: the Logistics API is limited release (eBay-approved developers only, USPS rates/labels only) and requires the sell.logistics scope, which must be added via EBAY_OAUTH_SCOPES and re-consent. It gives no explicit when-not or routing to alternatives, but the eligibility and prerequisite information tells the agent when this call can even succeed.

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