ebay_get_fulfillment_policy_by_name

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' is consistent. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether a non-existent policy returns an error or what fields the policy object contains. It neither contradicts nor enriches beyond the annotation.

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 short sentence, which is concise but borderline under-specified. It essentially restates the tool name without adding context that would help an agent decide to use it. It is not verbose, but it also does not earn its place by conveying unique information.

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 simplicity of a getter with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not mention what the returned policy looks like or any error conditions, but for a straightforward lookup this may be acceptable. Still, a note about the return structure would improve completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%: 'name' is described as 'Policy name' and 'marketplaceId' as 'eBay marketplace ID'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but since the schema fully documents both parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'fulfillment policy', with the modifier 'by name' distinguishing it from retrieval by ID or listing. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ebay_get_fulfillment_policy (which likely retrieves by ID) or ebay_get_fulfillment_policies (list).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is the preferred choice when the policy name is known, or that ebay_get_fulfillment_policy should be used when an ID is available. An agent must infer the usage context from the name alone.

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