ebay_get_sku_location_mapping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation with OAuth scope requirements, but lacks details on error behavior, response format, or any side effects. Since output schema is missing, the agent cannot infer return structure.

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 concise: two sentences followed by scope requirements. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the scope information could be considered administrative rather than functional.

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 tool with only two simple string parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and required scopes. However, without an output schema, it fails to indicate what the response contains (e.g., list of locations, location details), leaving the agent underinformed.

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 both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating 'listing and SKU'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('get'), the resource ('inventory locations'), and the specific condition ('for a specific listing and SKU'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ebay_create_or_replace_sku_location_mapping' and 'ebay_get_inventory_locations'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ebay_get_inventory_location' or the create/delete variants. The description does not exclude any scenarios or mention prerequisites.

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