ebay_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format (parsed JSON or HTML), mentions credit cost, and describes the return structure in detail. However, it omits potential error states or rate limiting.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes important notes. It is moderately concise; the return schema section is lengthy but useful. Minor redundancy (credits noted twice). Still efficient overall.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a detailed return structure. Parameters are fully described. It covers credits and URL structure. Missing guidance on error handling or edge cases, but adequate for typical use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the URL structure (product identity embedded) but largely restates schema descriptions for the html parameter. Infomation adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 scrapes an eBay product listing page by URL to retrieve specific fields. It uses a specific verb ('scrape') and resource ('eBay product listing page'), and is easily distinguishable from siblings like ebay_search.

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 usage for scraping known product pages but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., ebay_search). It provides a note about URL structure but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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