ebay_get_payments_program

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

The description discloses the deprecation status and required OAuth scope. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, and it does not explain the consequences of calling a deprecated method (e.g., whether it still returns data or will error). It adds some behavioral context but could be more specific.

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, with two sentences plus an OAuth scope line. It front-loads the main purpose and includes essential context (deprecation and scope). Every sentence is valuable with 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?

Given the tool is a simple GET with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, deprecation, and auth. However, it lacks details about return values or behavior beyond the deprecation note. It is minimally complete but could be enhanced by describing the expected response.

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 both parameters ('marketplaceId' and 'paymentsProgramType'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states 'Get payments program status for a marketplace.' It identifies the verb (get) and resource (payments program status). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'ebay_get_payments_program_status' or 'ebay_get_payments_program_onboarding', which have overlapping purposes.

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 provides context that the method is deprecated, implying it may not be the best choice, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to use this over ebay_get_payments_program_status or other related tools.

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