ebay_suggest_keywords

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, meaning this is not a read-only operation, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or any constraints on the request. With such minimal annotation coverage, the description should carry more weight, but it fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the generic 'suggest' action.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It lacks any structure or front-loading of important information. There is no explanation of what the tool does beyond the literal wording, and it does not provide useful details that an agent would need to decide on invocation. It is not a well-crafted concise description; it is merely sparse.

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 tool has three required parameters including a nested object, and there is no output schema. The description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of suggested keywords with metrics) or any context about the marketing campaign/ad group requirements. Given the complexity, the description is grossly incomplete and leaves the agent without 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?

Schema description coverage is stated as 100%, and the schema provides basic descriptions for adGroupId and campaignId (as 'required endpoint parameter') and a generic description for the request object. The tool description adds no additional meaning to parameters, such as explaining what the bid object, matchType, or keywordText represent in context. Since the schema covers the basics, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description does not enhance understanding.

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 clear verb and resource ('Suggest keywords') and specifies the API, so it avoids a tautology. However, it is very generic and does not explain what kind of suggestions are provided (e.g., based on ad group context, match types, or bids). It does differentiate from siblings like ebay_suggest_items or ebay_suggest_max_cpc by mentioning keywords, but lacks specificity on the actual function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other suggestion tools (e.g., ebay_suggest_bids or ebay_suggest_budget). The agent is left to infer usage from the schema, which is insufficient.

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