ebay_api_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose a meaningful behavioral guarantee: it verifies authentication without exposing credentials. It does not detail return format or failure modes, but the core safety-relevant behavior is covered for a zero-parameter status check.

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 entire description is one focused, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's function and safety property.

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 parameterless status-check tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is verified and what is not exposed. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the exact return value, but 'Verify' sufficiently implies a success/failure indication.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description appropriately needs no parameter-level detail because there is nothing to configure.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and a specific resource ('eBay Browse API application authentication'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from data-fetching and collection-management siblings because it focuses on authentication status.

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 clearly indicates when this tool applies: when an agent needs to verify eBay Browse API authentication. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the service-specific wording ('eBay Browse API') separates it from related identity/auth tools like discogs_identity.

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