ebay_get_user_preferences

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes further by naming the required OAuth scopes (sell.account.readonly or sell.account), explaining that marketplaceId is transmitted as the X-EBAY-C-MARKETPLACE-ID header, and disclosing the default-ALL behavior of fieldgroups. It stops short of describing rate limits or error behavior, so not a 5.

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 first sentence is front-loaded but bloated by a long enumeration of preference topics that overlaps with the fieldgroups enum already in the schema. The remaining two sentences are tight and informative, but the field list is padding that does not earn its place.

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 read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers the authentication scopes, the header requirement, the optional filtering parameter, and the breadth of returned preferences. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the shape of the response is left unspecified, which is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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 schema already documents the marketplaceId enum/header mapping and the full fieldgroups value list, so the description's restatement adds little. The 'comma-separated, default ALL' note is mildly useful but largely duplicates the schema text.

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 the seller's preferences'), scopes it ('for one marketplace'), and names the underlying API operation (Account API v2 getUserPreferences). It is unambiguously the read counterpart to the sibling ebay_set_user_preferences, and the enumerated preference topics confirm what data is returned.

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?

Usage is implied by the getter verb and the readOnly annotation, and the description explains the fieldgroups narrowing behavior, but it never states when to prefer this over ebay_set_user_preferences or any other account-related sibling, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the scope requirement.

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