ebay_get_video

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates read-only behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the possible processing statuses and explaining what data is returned, which goes beyond the annotation. It does not disclose error behavior, but for a simple read operation with annotation coverage this is a minor gap.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the returned fields are summarized, and the usage guidance is placed immediately after. Every sentence earns 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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool returns, the videoId source, and when to call it. There is no missing critical information for correct invocation.

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 input schema already fully documents videoId with the description 'eBay video ID returned by ebay_upload_video', giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds little beyond 'by ID', so the schema carries the semantic load. A score of 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Media API video by ID'), and concretely lists the returned fields: processing status, statusMessage, expiry, and playlists. It clearly distinguishes this from the upload companion tool and other listing/media tools in the sibling list.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: to re-check a video that was still PROCESSING after ebay_upload_video. This gives a clear usage trigger and a direct connection to the upstream operation, leaving no ambiguity about the intended workflow.

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