Map Marko 5 ebayui-core tags to Marko 6 evo-web tags

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the no-argument fallback (returns the entire mapping table), which the schema cannot express since the parameter is optional, but it says nothing about the size or pagination of that full table or the format of the changelog notes.

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, front-loaded with the primary lookup behavior and followed by the fallback case. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or repeated from the schema.

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, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does the essential work of describing what comes back (replacement tag plus API-difference notes). Minor gaps remain around the shape/size of the full-table response, but an agent can call it correctly from this description.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by adding a sample value and, more importantly, by defining the semantics of omission - no name yields the complete mapping table - which the schema alone does not convey.

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 precise verb and resource: given a Marko 5 '@ebay/ebayui-core' tag, return the Marko 6 '@evo-web/marko' replacement plus changelog notes. A concrete example input ('ebay-textbox') makes the resource domain unambiguous and clearly separates this migration-mapping tool from lookup siblings like get_component.

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 establishes the calling context (migrating ebayui-core tags to evo-web) and explains the two modes of use: pass a name for one mapping, omit it for the full table. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, e.g. whether list_components should be used to enumerate all tags instead of the no-arg fallback.

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