ebay_get_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'full details' and says nothing about the required eBay credentials, rate limits, or what fieldgroups controls, so it contributes little beyond the structured data.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste, appropriately brief for a simple getter. Its terseness is a coverage problem rather than a structural one.

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 5-parameter tool requiring credentials and offering fieldgroups/marketplace options, with no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain authentication needs or what the optional parameters change, leaving real gaps.

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?

Only item_id is documented in the schema (20% coverage); fieldgroups and marketplace have no description anywhere, and client_id/client_secret are undocumented. The description confirms lookup is 'by item ID' but does not compensate for the missing semantics on the remaining parameters.

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 specific verb (get), resource (eBay item), and lookup key (item ID), letting an agent distinguish it from ebay_search and ebay_get_categories. It does not, however, differentiate it from the sibling ebay_get_item_by_legacy_id, leaving ambiguity about which item-ID flavor to use.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus ebay_search or ebay_get_item_by_legacy_id, and no preconditions stated. The agent must infer that it has an item ID in hand.

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