ebay_get_opted_in_programs

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention idempotency, authentication requirements, return format, or side effects. The description only restates the name's meaning, lacking crucial behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is as concise as possible for the minimal content it provides, earning 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 no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'programs' refers to, what the return value looks like, or any prerequisites. An agent would lack full understanding without prior context.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but does not exceed the baseline.

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', making it distinct from siblings like ebay_opt_in_to_program (write operation) and ebay_get_kyc (different data). It is specific and 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 explicit usage guidance is provided, such as when to use this tool versus alternatives like ebay_get_kyc. However, the simplicity of the tool (no parameters) and the clear purpose partially compensate, making it minimally viable.

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