ebay_create_return_policy

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false confirms this is a write operation and aligns with the description, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'create' — it does not mention duplicate handling, required sub-fields, marketplace constraints, or what a successful call returns.

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 short and front-loaded with no filler, which is good. However, it is under-specified: for a tool with a complex nested object parameter and no other documentation, a one-clause sentence does not provide enough structural information to invoke the tool confidently.

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 complex nested schema, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description leaves too much unsaid. An agent would need to infer all semantics from the schema alone and would have no information about successful responses, error cases, or relationship to other return-policy tools.

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%, and the description adds nothing about the single 'policy' parameter, its required fields (name and marketplaceId), or its nested return-policy settings. The schema itself provides useful property names and enums, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a clear verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('return policy'), which matches the tool's name. It does not elaborate on what a return policy contains or how it distinguishes itself from related create_*_policy tools, but the resource type is unambiguous.

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 is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like ebay_update_return_policy, ebay_get_return_policies, ebay_create_fulfillment_policy, or ebay_create_payment_policy. The description implies 'use this to create a return policy' but provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria.

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