ebay_get_fulfillment_policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered by structured data. The description adds value by specifying the required OAuth scopes (sell.account.readonly or sell.account), which is useful auth context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose what the response contains, whether results are paginated, or how the list is ordered.

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 purpose sentence is short and front-loaded, and the two OAuth scope lines are compact and informative without redundancy. There is no wasted text. A slightly longer sentence differentiating from the singular-policy sibling would have improved it, but the current size is efficient.

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 one-parameter read tool, the schema and readOnlyHint cover the mechanical aspects of invocation, but the description leaves the critical distinction from ebay_get_fulfillment_policy and ebay_get_fulfillment_policy_by_name implicit. With no output schema and a very thin description, an agent choosing among roughly 200 siblings gets little disambiguating help.

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% — marketplaceId has a full enum of 41 values and a descriptive example ('eBay marketplace ID (e.g., EBAY_US)'). The description text itself adds nothing about the parameter, never even mentioning marketplaceId. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get fulfillment policies for the seller.' The plural 'policies' hints at a list operation that is distinct from the singular sibling ebay_get_fulfillment_policy, and 'fulfillment' disambiguates from payment/return/shipping policy tools. However, it does not explicitly call out that differentiation, relying on the plural noun to carry it.

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 offers no guidance about when to use this tool versus its close siblings such as ebay_get_fulfillment_policy, ebay_get_fulfillment_policy_by_name, or the payment/return policy listing tools. The only extra content is the OAuth scope requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage rule. No alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided.

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