ebay_get_payment_dispute_summaries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states it retrieves summaries, indicating a read operation, and lists required OAuth scope. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or detailed response characteristics. Given no output schema, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus OAuth scope. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not thorough. It explains the purpose and filters but omits details like output format, default behavior, and pagination. It meets a minimal viable standard but leaves 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description reiterates a few filter types (e.g., dispute status, buyer username, order ID) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides adequate context.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get summaries of all payment disputes.' It specifies the action (Get), the resource (payment dispute summaries), and the ability to filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ebay_get_payment_dispute (single dispute) and ebay_get_payment_dispute_activities (activities).

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 mentions filters and required OAuth scope, providing context for usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidelines are implied rather than explicit, leaving room for ambiguity.

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