ebay_get_opted_in_programs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it is a read operation ('get'), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes 'programs.' For a simple retrieval tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentence of 7 words, with no extraneous information. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and simple operation, the description is nearly complete. It could optionally mention the return type (e.g., list of program names), but the current text suffices for a basic retrieval tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description has no parameters to explain, and the baseline of 4 is exceeded because no additional semantic value is needed.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'seller programs the account is opted into'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like ebay_opt_in_to_program and ebay_opt_out_of_program, which manage program status rather than retrieve 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are tools for opting in/out and checking other statuses, but the description does not specify context or exclusions. The agent is left to infer when this is appropriate.

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