ebay_get_custom_policies

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation, and the description aligns with it by using 'Retrieve.' The description adds minimal context by scoping results to the seller account, but it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, empty result behavior, or whether omitting policyTypes returns all policy types. With annotations covering the read-only nature, the description adds some but limited value.

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 a single clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no redundant wording, and it earns its place by communicating the core purpose without filler or structural clutter.

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?

The tool is fairly simple: one optional parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation. However, the description leaves ambiguity about what 'custom policies' includes, when the policyTypes parameter should be used, and whether omitting it returns all types. The lack of any usage guidance or output description makes this minimally complete but with clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter fully described as a comma-delimited list with examples. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as default behavior when omitted or valid values beyond the schema examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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+resource combination: 'Retrieve custom policies defined for the seller account.' This clearly indicates the operation and scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ebay_get_custom_policy or other policy retrieval tools such as ebay_get_fulfillment_policies, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention that this is for listing custom policies in bulk, that policyTypes can filter the results, or that a singular getter (ebay_get_custom_policy) exists for retrieving one policy. There are no exclusions or conditions stated.

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