ebay_validate_token_expiry

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

No annotations exist, so description must cover behavioral aspects. It states it checks expiry and gives recommendations, but does not disclose whether it makes network calls, requires authentication, or has side effects. The basic behavior is covered but lacks depth.

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 sentences, no redundancy. Purpose is front-loaded. Every word adds value. Achieves high information density without waste.

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?

No output schema, so description should clarify return format. It mentions 'actionable recommendations' but does not specify structure (e.g., list of actions, status flags). Also, it doesn't clarify if both tokens are required (schema says yes). Adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating that inputs are expiry times; the schema's descriptions already mention ISO/Unix/relative format. 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 tool validates token expiry and provides recommendations, using specific verbs ('Validate', 'Checks', 'provides'). It distinguishes from siblings like ebay_get_token_status and ebay_refresh_access_token by focusing on expiry validation and actionable advice.

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 implies use for checking token expiry before operations, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like ebay_get_token_status. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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