ebay_contest_payment_dispute

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It specifies OAuth scopes required, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the action is synchronous, side effects, or expected response. Partial coverage.

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 concise with two sentences plus OAuth scope. It is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. No wasted 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?

For a simple action with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential 'when' and OAuth. However, it lacks details on what happens after contesting, expected response, or prerequisites beyond OAuth. Slightly incomplete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not elaborate on how to use parameters effectively (e.g., how to obtain revision number).

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 action ('Contest a payment dispute by providing evidence') and when to use it ('when you disagree with the buyer claim'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ebay_accept_payment_dispute and ebay_get_payment_dispute.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use ('when you disagree with the buyer claim and want to provide proof'). It implies when not to use (if agreeing, use accept_payment_dispute). However, it lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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