ebay_get_signing_keys

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns public keys and metadata, and importantly states that private keys are not stored by eBay, clarifying a key limitation. However, it omits details on authentication, rate limits, or any potential side effects, though the read-only nature limits risk.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that directly explain the tool's purpose and output. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.

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 explains the return value (public keys and metadata) but not the structure. Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, it is fairly complete, though a note about the format or pagination would improve it. However, the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable.

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 are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, this gives a baseline of 4. The description does not add parameter semantics because none exist.

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 retrieves all signing keys for the application, using the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'signing keys'. It distinguishes from the singular 'ebay_get_signing_key' by specifying 'all', and clarifies the return includes public keys and metadata with an important note about private keys.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ebay_get_signing_key' or 'ebay_get_notification_public_key'. It implies retrieval of all keys, but lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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