ebay_get_payments_program

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by saying 'Get'. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation: the method is deprecated and requires specific OAuth scopes, which is important for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second delivers the critical deprecation warning, and the third gives the required OAuth scopes. Everything is front-loaded and 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?

For a simple read-only getter, the description covers purpose, deprecation status, and authentication requirements. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the shape or meaning of the returned 'status' would make it fully complete, but it is otherwise sufficient.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters, including an enum for marketplaceId. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 ('Get') and resource ('payments program status') with a clear marketplace scope. It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ebay_get_payments_program_onboarding.

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 deprecation note clearly tells an agent when not to use this tool, since all seller accounts have been enabled for the new payment flow. It lacks an explicit pointer to an alternative tool, but the 'do not call' signal is strong and actionable.

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