zoom_ebay_photo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does disclose the resolution ceiling and cropping semantics. It omits prerequisites (must the item/photos be fetched first?) and says nothing about what the crop returns or whether max_px overrides the stated 1600px full-resolution behavior.

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, zero waste: the action and motivation come first, then the box syntax with a concrete example. Every phrase earns its place and the hard-to-guess detail is front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the box semantics are fully covered. Gaps remain around how item and photo_index are sourced and what max_px does relative to the 1600px claim, which matters for a four-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It does an excellent job on the hardest parameter, defining box as fractional [x0,y0,x1,y1] with a worked example, but leaves item, photo_index, and max_px entirely unexplained, including the potential tension between max_px's default of 1400 and the advertised 1600px full resolution.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Crop one listing photo") plus an explicit resolution ceiling (1600px), so it is unmistakable what the tool does. It does not name the sibling it pairs with (get_ebay_item_photos), leaving the agent to infer which call supplies the photo to crop.

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?

It clearly states the situations that call for zooming: reading tags, labels, nameplates, serial plates, or inspecting a flaw. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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