ebay_get_payment_policy_by_name

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

The read-only behavior is already captured by the `readOnlyHint: true` annotation, and the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what happens if no policy matches, whether names are unique, or what fields are returned). It is consistent but does not go 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the operation.

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?

The basic callability is satisfied by the schema and short description, but it lacks disambiguation from the similar `ebay_get_payment_policy` tool and does not state uniqueness or not-found behavior. With no output schema, return expectations are only implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, with both `name` and `marketplaceId` described. The description adds no semantic detail beyond the phrase 'by name', so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get a payment policy') and includes the distinctive 'by name' modifier, which helps distinguish it from `ebay_get_payment_policy`. It does not explicitly name the sibling or explain the difference, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of `ebay_get_payment_policy` or `ebay_get_payment_policies`. The 'by name' distinction is implicit, but no explicit context or alternative routing is provided.

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