ebay_get_advertising_eligibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the required OAuth scope and the action of checking eligibility, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or any potential rate limits or costs. For a read-only check, transparency is minimal.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and the OAuth scope requirement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and required scope. However, it does not describe the return value or format, which is a gap in completeness for a tool with no output schema.

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 input schema already documents both parameters sufficiently. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning or examples beyond what is in the schema, hence a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'seller eligibility status for eBay advertising programs'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools which focus on ads, campaigns, or other operations, as this is specifically for eligibility checking.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the required OAuth scope, which is a prerequisite but not a usage guideline. The intended use is implied (check eligibility before creating ads/campaigns), but lacks explicit guidance or exclusions.

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